MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Christine Blasey Ford Was Worth Hearing, But No One on the Senate Judiciary Committee Was Listening

This isn't due process—this isn't even an honest attempt to determine what actually happened.

KavanaughJoshua Roberts/REUTERS/NewscomChristine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a party 35 years ago, answered questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday morning.

The absurd format of the hearing, the obvious biases of all relevant adjudicators, and the failure to summon additional witnesses for questioning all but guaranteed that these proceedings would be farcical from a due process perspective—and they were.

The Republican senators—all men—delegated Special Counsel Rachel Mitchell to ask their questions for them because they thought it would look better if Ford's cross-examination was conducted by a woman. But because of the structure of the hearing—five minutes of Republican questioning, followed by five minutes of Democratic questioning—Mitchell had to keep pausing to allow those on the other side their turn. This made her line of questioning very difficult to follow. Her flow was constantly interrupted. And many of her questions were minor clarifications of things Ford had said. If Mitchell's ultimate goal was to undermine Ford's credibility, she failed.

"I am here today not because I want to be," said Ford in her testimony. "I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school."

Indeed, Ford spoke eloquently about what she remembered and what she did not. Her background as a professor of psychology no doubt helped her tremendously—she was able to speak with authority about memory and trauma.

"Occasionally, I would discuss the assault in individual therapy, but talking about it caused me to relive the trauma, so I tried not to think about it or discuss it," said Ford. "But over the years, I went through periods where I thought about Brett's attack. I confided in some close friends that I had an experience with sexual assault. Occasionally, I stated that my assailant was a prominent lawyer or judge but I did not use his name."

Whenever it seemed like Mitchell was getting to the point of her questions, her allotted time came to an end, and then the Democrats spoke. Cross-examination, halted every five minutes, and punctuated by statements of support from partisan Democrats who are obviously biased against Kavanaugh, is pointless. Several senators, including Sen. Kisten Gillibrand (D–NY) and Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.) made blanket I-believe-you statements. Their minds are already made up, and Kavanaugh hasn't even testified about the alleged assault yet.

The Republicans aren't really interested in the truth, either. If they were, they should have summoned Mark Judge—a friend of Kavanaugh and alleged witness to the incident—to testify, at the very least. They did not.

As I wrote previously, due process requires impartial judges and juries. But the people who will vote to confirm Kavanaugh have largely already made up their minds on the matter of his alleged sexual assault. As the attorney Harvey Silverglate wrote in a recent column, "the Kavanaugh case is not about justice; it's about power... The scenario playing out on Capitol Hill and in the press, the bottom line is simple: whoever has the most votes, whichever political party holds (for the time being) the most power, will determine what the 'truth' is. There will be no civics book ending. No analogy to a real judicial proceeding will be possible."

A full investigation of this matter, and a fair adjudication of Kavanaugh, would require a significantly revised process. This isn't due process—this isn't even an honest attempt to determine what actually happened.

Photo Credit: Joshua Roberts/REUTERS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sigivald||

    A Senate hearing not interested in truth, but grandstanding?

    Quelle surprise!

  • rocks||

    Congress is a circus, not a court. This is exactly what you wanted and have been asking for Reason, you fucking cucks.

  • Quixote||

    Why should anyone wish to determine what "actually happened"—and who would have time for such an absurd exercise? As long as we appoint governmental officials who will do what needs to be done to stop the Trolls and the "parodists," we are on the right path towards making America great again. More progress can, and must, be made: see the documentation of our nation's leading criminal "satire" case at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Can anyone find a single right-winger that believes her, or a single leftie that does not?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Does anyone have any free will left? Or are everyone's actions and beliefs now moulded by the requirements of their partisanship?

  • DesigNate||

    Not a right-winger, but I can believe she was assaulted at some point in her life.

    I just think the chances of it being Kavanaugh in particular are pretty slim

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    And they get even slimmer when you factor in her blatant and preposterous lies about things like her fear of flying and her therapy.

    These kinds of lies diminish her credibility about everything else she is saying.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Ad to that her partisan attorney, her pre-accusation phony "lie detector test" and deletion of all of her social media posts. This could all be due to her partisan handlers but a reasonable person might question whether or not she's acting in good faith. I know the thought has crossed my mind.

  • retiredfire||

    Doesn't her lie about fear of flying indicate she is willing to tell an untruth, to obtain a desired result?
    Thus her clearly desired result of keeping Kavanaugh off the SC could easily all be a lie, too.
    Mitchell, the lawyer, doing the questioning for the Republicans, did get some other factors brought to light - like the fact that this event, where she snuck out of the party, went unremarked upon. Wouldn't whomever brought her have asked where she had gone, after the fact? She said no one, not even her good friend, who attended with her, later asked what had happened. Does that ring true?
    She lived six miles from the area, where she says the gathering took place, yet she doesn't remember, nor does anyone else, how she got home. No one has come forward to say they remember taking an obviously shaken girl on a twenty minute drive to her home.
    Mitchell also asked if any of the people, who she claims she had attended with, has reached out to her, since the story broke - and none of them had. In fact, her good friend denied that she had been at any kind of event like this, and Ford's reasoning about some vague health issue as to why she would contradict her, also sounded like bullshit.
    Ford was not believable, but, in today's environment, it would be bad politics to actually say that in the hearing. Mitchell got her points out, to anyone willing to hear them, but was prevented, by those same politics, from honing in on them, as a real cross-examiner would.

  • Otus||

    I am a little scared that Dr. Ford is being set up to be a hero for the Me-Too movement (but good for her) based on an experience involving underage drinking 36 years ago while she was 15 interacting with 17 year old boys that had 18 year old friends providing the beer. Judge Kananaugh and others more correctly should have said that they "don't remember" any such event rather than also correctly saying "it didn't happen". It likely could have happened for Dr. Ford, an admitted willing participant, in an underage drinking party who got scared of being raped (after who knows how many beers) when she was thinking about going to the bathroom and having to remove her cloths to get off her one piece bathing suit.

  • Tony||

    Because he's a pet (R) of an (R) president? What other reason?

  • DesigNate||

    Because the only thing she fucking remembers are some names you mendacious fuck.

    *Names, btw, of people who have refuted her story. And, as I've said before (even though you never bother listening), Fuck Kavanaugh.

  • Tony||

    Even Fox News finds her credible

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Tony thinks Fox News is credible? Hogwash.

  • Sigivald||

    Also, "Fox News finds her credible"?

    I mean, possibly. But can you show us that?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Sigivald|9.27.18 @ 6:24PM|#

    Also, "Fox News finds her credible"?

    I mean, possibly. But can you show us that?

    (snort)

    1) Chris Wallace on Christine Blasey Ford Testimony: 'This Is a Disaster for Republicans'

    2) Judge Nap: Prosecutor 'Hasn't Laid a Glove' on Ford, Is Actually Helping Her Credibility

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Even Fox News finds her credible"

    No, they don't.

    Kill yourself.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Last of the Shitgheads -- one more bullying fuckup!

    "Even Fox News finds her credible"

    No, they don't.

    Kill yourself.

    (sneering at the thug)

    1) Chris Wallace on Christine Blasey Ford Testimony: 'This Is a Disaster for Republicans'

    2) Judge Nap: Prosecutor 'Hasn't Laid a Glove' on Ford, Is Actually Helping Her Credibility

  • ||

    And I couldn't help but notice that just a few minutes after she said that maybe the one and only thing she's 100% certain of is that her attacker was Kavanaugh, when she was being asked something to the effect of "how are you sure they were laughing" her response was "somebody was on top of me and there was laughter."

    She also says she had not one alcoholic drink or any drugs at all, yet she has no idea where she was, how she got there, what year it was, how many other people were there, who those people were, or how she got home.

    While she did not sound to me like she was lying, she certainly didn't come across as particularly credible. I'm willing to believe that she believes something happened to her that rises to the level of sexual assault, but I'm not convinced it's not all in her head, quite frankly.

    Disclaimer: I strongly dislike Kavanaugh and think he's a dangerous addition to the SCOTUS. But that he's being dragged through this shitshow rather than being dismissed on his merits is much more dangerous.

  • Nardz||

    She has convinced herself something happened, but I don't think she believes something happened

  • Mark Question||

    Progtard.

    You just outed yourself as a leftist by suggesting that there is anything to her story behind a calculated lie to advance the Great Progressive Utopia. Also, you don't like Kavanaugh.

    Real patriots, and truly decent people, always side with the right. Always. Regardless of the truth or "liberty" as you sniveling liberal weaklings like to drool over.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    And your use of name calling makes your opinions null and void in any conversation on this topic. A real commentator will use facts and not not name calling and weak logic and tribal declarations.

  • Tony||

    You're just lying. She had one beer. She can't remember the details beyond the immediate traumas because... can you remember such things from that far back?

  • arcaneknowledge||

    couldn't have said it better myself tony. the problem with all of these accusations is that no one not even any of proposed witnesses can remember any of the details such as it having ever happened. in every single one of these accusations the only evidence seems to be "because i said so". based upon the accounts given by the accusers there should be several witnesses to choose from, but there isn't anyone, not one single witness to the event itself or its aftermath. that isn't good enough in the real world, maybe on social media but not in reality.

  • Headache||

    I can. Back to Jan 9, 1979 from around 10:30 pm until surgery. Almost everything!

  • Qsl||

    There is an important aspect you are not considering-

    She was possibly abducted by aliens. It has just as much proof as any other claim and can fully explain the sequence of events, including her fear of flying.

    Now I'm not saying Kavanaugh is in league with the greys as a co-conspirator to the reptilian agenda or that this event transpired when false memory syndrome was more of a thing, but it does have just as much merit as any other theory, and a full 77% of Americans believe aliens have visited the earth, which is higher than any believe either testimony.

    Vote against the reptilian agenda this November.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The truth is that BK is working with Gary Seven and occasionally UNIT.

  • Otus||

    please tell me how I should vote is reptilian; Republican, Democrats or Geico Party?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    when she was being asked something to the effect of "how are you sure they were laughing" her response was "somebody was on top of me and there was laughter."

    She was never asked that, goober.

    he also says she had not one alcoholic drink or any drugs at all,

    She had one beer. (snort)

    While she did not sound to me like she was lying, she certainly didn't come across as particularly credible

    YOU are the fucking liar, And ....

    Chris Wallace on Christine Blasey Ford Testimony: 'This Is a Disaster for Republicans'

    Judge Nap: Prosecutor 'Hasn't Laid a Glove' on Ford, Is Actually Helping Her Credibility

    That's FOUR strikes, You're out.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    when she was being asked something to the effect of "how are you sure they were laughing" her response was "somebody was on top of me and there was laughter."

    She was never asked that, goober.

    he also says she had not one alcoholic drink or any drugs at all,

    She had one beer. (snort)

    While she did not sound to me like she was lying, she certainly didn't come across as particularly credible

    YOU are the fucking liar, And ....

    Chris Wallace on Christine Blasey Ford Testimony: 'This Is a Disaster for Republicans'

    Judge Nap: Prosecutor 'Hasn't Laid a Glove' on Ford, Is Actually Helping Her Credibility

    That's FOUR strikes, You're out.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Liar

  • Otus||

    I like your comments I wanted to add mine; I am a little scared that Dr. Ford is being set up to be a hero for the Me-Too movement (but good for her) based on an experience involving underage drinking 36 years ago while she was 15 interacting with 17 year old boys that had 18 year old friends providing the beer. Judge Kananaugh and others more correctly should have said that they "don't remember" any such event rather than also correctly saying "it didn't happen". It likely could have happened for Dr. Ford, an admitted willing participant, in an underage drinking party who got scared of being raped (after who knows how many beers) when she was thinking about going to the bathroom and having to remove her cloths to get off her one piece bathing suit.

    This said, I think some courageous Democrat Leaders, could make some progress and score big by announcing support for Judge Kavanaugh asap (Monday if possible before it is clear all GOP will confirm, which they will). This contingent on favorable information from the FBI if they are scared. Most reasonable Americans and even Trump would love it and then run for President in 2020.

  • Sigivald||

    n.b. "denied", not "refuted".

    To refute is to show sometime to be false, not to claim it, even firsthand.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I have personal experience with self-generated false memories that long ago. They still seem real as day to me, but I have seen video which disagrees.

    I know damn well that whatever experience she had in 1982, the telling and retelling of it ever since have only reinforced what she thinks that memory was, not what really happened. I'd bet a paycheck that her memory of it now is different from it 10 years, and 20 years ago, and 30 years ago. I'd also bet a paycheck that whatever the actual 36-year old experience was, it was so minor that she probably didn't even think of it as an assault until many years later, when she needed some great party story to not seem like the most uninteresting person there.

  • Ron||

    many people will expand on an experience to make their lives more interesting than it truly was. A relative of mine does that all the time and now that persons off spring does it as well and I know the incidences they refer to were not what they think it was. its amazing to see but we have the McMartin pre school case and many others of self imagined experiences

  • StackOfCoins||

    Far too many people think their memory is infallible. But memory is highly malleable. The brain is not a hard drive. The method by rich it encodes and accesses memory is not like a computer. There is no "read-only" function to recalling memory. The act of recalling memory has a habit of changing it.

  • msimmons||

    Mitchell got close to making an interesting point: an alleged sex assault contributed to her anxiety and phobias. So, there were other events, or maybe none at all. My theory (since this isn't about facts or truth...you know, justice), is that Ford suffers from some significant anxiety and phobias t not linked to a specific event. I have a family member that could not deal with high school - a male who sobbed uncontrollably and feigned illnesses to avoid going to school.

    And what memory was seared in her brain from the incident? Not the groping and grinding, not the hand on the mouth. It was that they laughed at her. So, my theory is high school boys decided to rough house with her because they knew she would freak, she was the nervous nellie nerd at school, and when she did, they laughed. And when BK was in the news, she was going to get even and destroy him.

    She's a psych expert who wants us to believe that it helps to supress memories? Her background gave her the authority to recount her experience with expertise? Umm, talk therapy much?

    Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Since it's all about sentiment and not truth these days, I believe she's a liar driven to obtain revenge. I know because my ex had the same crazy eyes and could turn on the poor little girl routine to garner sympathy to go with her compulsive lying. Ford is woman, hear her shaky voice, not a roar. Helen Reddy would mock her.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • Otus||

    This goes along with my comment here;
    It likely could have happened for Dr. Ford, an admitted willing participant, in an underage drinking party who got scared of being raped (after who knows how many beers) when she was thinking about going to the bathroom and having to remove her cloths to get off her one piece bathing suit.

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    Can anyone find a single right-winger that believes her, or a single leftie that does not?

    From their behavior, I'd say the reverse. They act as if the Left is afraid it didn't happen, and the Right is afraid it did. They're all just unwilling to admit their fears.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Can anyone find a "libertarian" with a shred of evidence or principle?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano calling for the repeal of the 21st Amendment.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So that's a no. Or what we like to call a 'hihn' which is just another word for zero.

  • Ron||

    One of my fellow class mates drank all the time got so drunk one time he passed out on an electric cattle fence. he is now a brain surgeon. Another big time drinker became a fighter pilot. Amazing how some people turn out.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Every single one of the high achievers in my class was a lush during that phase of life. Maybe something about being able to incapacitate yourself weekly and still handle the college workload prepared people for later in life.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Mark Page's book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh's freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses. (snort)

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And that proves exactly what?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    1) It gives full credibility to Ford.

    2) Which is WHY he so angrily denied it (snort)

    3) Which makes your question as stupid as you.

    Anything else, Skippy?

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Wyatt, you worthless Leftist faggot. Go crawl somewhere and die.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Wyatt, you worthless Leftist faggot. Go crawl somewhere and die.

    RETARD say ONLY "Leftist faggots" oppose their Orange God.
    And how very imnfantile

    Left and Right are obsolete ... for nearly 50 years now.
    TRY to keep up.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yeah faggot, you said that already. Now fuck off. No one wants you here.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Hihn, switching socks doesn't make you more credible. It only makes you look more unstable, which for you is quite the feat.

    Hihnfection.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Another BIG demand that Kavanaugh be withdrawn,,,

    This from a leading Jesuit publication, America Magazine. (Kavanaugh's high school was Jesuit)
    To this, add this the Dean of the prestigious Yale Law School, Judge Kavanaugh's own alma mater,

    The list is growing of supposedly dishonest answers from Kavanaugh on Thursday, now expanded to include diversions, evasions and refusals to key question. Personally, his refusal to deny that he is the total drunk in Mark Judge;s book, a classmate named "Bart O'Kavanaugh" This one is becoming a bandwagon. He claims innocence everywhere EXCEPT this published incident. With all his other claims that he was never a heavy drinker, why would he refuse to say it was not him who puked into a car and passed out?

    It's quite reasonable to assume he was avoiding perjury. He refused twice. The first one, he set his jaw and went totally silent, defiantly. New "witnesses" are popping up on his heavy drinking, including an ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, who says Mark described an event similar to Dr. Ford.s.

    At this moment, he's likely to be gone, long before the FBI finishes.

  • n00bdragon||

    What country is this? Saudi Arabia? Since when did drinking unequivocally lead to violent rape? How does a reputation for drinking equal evidence of violent sexual assault anymore than, say, smoking pot (Reason's apparent intoxicant of choice)? Why can't people just be honest and say they don't want Kavanaugh to be a supreme in order to protect abortion? That's what this is about... and I agree that's a good reason to oppose him if that's something you feel strongly about, but be honest about it! This mendacity is destroying my last few shreds of hope for humanity.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    ^THIS!

  • Otus||

    I am hopeful that a less legislative judiciary Supreme Court will lead to more State Rights or actual legislation and hopefully less contention and more cooperation in the national government. Liberals would be free to visit or move to Liberal States and Conservatives to move or visit Conservative States where everyone can go and enjoy what activities they wish. We could all have the great country we want and go visit Las Vegas on the weekends.

  • Bubba Jones||

    So was I and all my friends.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano in with his cheeseboard rantings.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You can supply those affidavits, right? All 6?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    You can supply those affidavits, right? All 6?

    Crazy goober "thinks" Nolan is the Senate Judicial Committee!!!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So no.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Dumbfuck question. Called. You lose.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So no.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Why would I have to, Skippy?

  • Sigivald||

    Have you considered looking?

  • Headache||

    Not here, not at this time!

  • mpercy||

    Can anyone find a Democratic Senator who was not going to vote against Kavanaugh even before these and his original hearings?

  • John||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    "(What's a Hihn?)" sure helps your credibility.

  • TuIpa||

    It's obviously you Hihn, don't bother.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I have Chris Wallace, Britt Hume and Judge Nap.

    And the obvious effects of syphilis.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Proof that Dumbfuck Hihnsano is an ignoramus.
    (snort)

  • Headache||

    John, ^this^ is Hihn.

  • Fancylad||

    (What's a Hihn?)
    "This isn't a fake moustache, it's real... I swear. I just have loose follicles. And the name's not Hihn, it's Elias… No, wait... It's Nolan... Yeah Nolan, that's the ticket."

  • Libertymike||

    And die.

  • Libertymike||

    A Hihn is a few fries short of a happy meal.

  • Ron||

    Just heard part of Kav's opening statement, very powerful

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Nolan has Chris Wallace, Britt Hume and Judge Nap. Listen to the squealing goobers!
    Here's the link .. losers ... FOX NEWS!!! (Link to Judge Nap on same page) (sneer)

  • DesigNate||

    It's sad that you pretend to be different people.

  • Fancylad||

    If you're going to have different sockpuppets, at least try to sound a little distinctive for each one.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    CANNOT challenge PROOF that Fox News called Dr. Ford's testimony "a massive failure for Republicans!!!" (Which is WHY they were HUMILIATED on the FBI investigation)

    So they babble about my NAME -- the loosertarians
    (sigh)

  • Fk_Censorship||

    I can find lots of left wingers that don't believe her, but parade her anyways to further their political agenda. Most of them are senators.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Your side lost, whiny goobers. Even Fox News says so!!

    Mark Page's book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh's freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses in this Kangaroo Court. (snort)

  • Headache||

    Yeah, people on the side of justice lost.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Losertarians (lol)

  • MSimon||

    Can anyone find a single right-winger that believes her, or a single leftie that does not?

    I believe her. I just don't think she is telling the truth.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I think Dershowitz would tell you that the deviation from party orthodoxy involved in somebody on the left not 'believing' her would be enough that you'd be declared to be no longer on the left.

    As for people on the right believing her, she hasn't given ANYBODY much reason to believe her without ulterior motives for claiming to. Even her named witnesses turned into witnesses against her. She's relying on nothing but her unsupported word.

  • TxJack 112||

    Believes something happened or believes it was Kavanagh? A lot of people including Kavanagh have said they believe something happened to her. The issue is there is no proof or even a shred of evidence to imply the person who assaulted her was Kavanagh other than her claim.

  • ImanAzol||

    The truth is she's a lying liberal whore. Everyone with a brain knew that two weeks ago.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Your side lost, goobers,
    Even Fox News says so!!

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • Headache||

    Hay Hihn, the only side to loose is Liberty. No man is safe, including you! Ford could have and still can file the assault with local Maryland police. But, that probably won't happen.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Yet another falsehood by Headache

    Police Chief and State Attorney in Montgomnery County, where the assault allegedly occured

    In a letter, the police chief and state attorney in Montgomery County, where the assault allegedly occurred, said they would not investigate the incident without a complaint from Ford. They also noted they could do little to prosecute such a case — assault and attempted rape were misdemeanors in 1982 and subject to a one-year statute of limitations.

    Next lame excuse?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The premises of this article, and Robby, are complete bullshit.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies..

    1) He claims he was legally allowed to drink beer, but his drinking was illegal. The drinking age in Maryland changed to 21, before he became a senior, and he was not 18 as a junior. Associated Press

    2) He also lied that the other four people at the party have "denied" the events. HE is the only one denying it. The others all said they could not remember it, BIG difference. Only one other student was in the room, Mark Judge, and even he did not deny it happened, only that he could not recall it. AP Fact Check

    Most notable to me, Kavanaugh twice REFUSED to answer if he was the out of control drunk depicted in Mark Judges book as "Bart O'Kavanaugh." (wink wink) Is that because he was under oath? (lol)

    Check my sources. If recent history on this topic is a guide, this will now be followed by the typical raging hatred and personal attacks by Trump's loyal cyber-bullies NEVER any SUPPORTED challenge to the known facts.

    Because: Left - Right = Zero
    Both authoritarian, less than 40% of Americans, and still shrinking..

    It's over Trumpsters. Deal with it.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "I am here today not because I want to be," said Ford in her testimony. "I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school."

    Total bullshit.

    "Indeed, Ford spoke eloquently about what she remembered and what she did not. Her background as a professor of psychology no doubt helped her tremendously—she was able to speak with authority about memory and trauma."

    Also total bullshit

  • Jerry B.||

    Did she ever remember when or where the alleged event took place, or name any witnesses who haven't already denied her claims?

  • Azathoth!!||

    No.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nope.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Well, then.

    there is nothing more to discuss.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I guess we can all go home now.

  • TuIpa||

    Well, you can, it's not like anyone would notice anyway.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    She's changed her story to eliminate the witness she earlier named, though.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Your side lost, goobers. Even Fox News says so!!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Fuck off. I can't wait until we start putting traitors like you where you belong.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Enjoy your inconsequential, bitter muttering along America's sidelines as our nation continues to improve against your right-wing wishes and efforts, Gilbert Martin.

  • Here for the outrage||

    Deciding supreme court justices based on emotional responses is an improvement?

    How libertarian of you

  • DesigNate||

    Rev isn't a libertarian. He's a garbage human who doesn't believe in due process or rule of law.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Please, stop insulting garbage.

  • Hattori Hanzo||

    Nah, he just a successful troll account. Someone always gets reeled in. He has a high success rate.

  • TuIpa||

    " He has a high success rate."

    No boy, he doesn't.

    /Expert testimony

  • ||

    He's no libertarian.

    Just your run of the mill statist progressive.

  • TuIpa||

    Why the sock Hihn? Still banned?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Lose on the facts. Attack the person, Add crazy shit about a sock
    (laughing at the losers)

  • Rockabilly||

    David Nolan has a crush on Christine Blasey Ford.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He probably has a bigger crush on Cory Booker.

  • ThomasD||

    She couldn't remember if she gave the Washington Post access to her counselling files.

    A psychology professor is unclear if she gave a news source the ability to access her confidential files. Something that no doubt would have required written authorization.

    Um, ok.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Liar,

  • TuIpa||

    Yes, she is , we all agree.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano manically flogging his sockpuppets.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Wouldn't require written authorization if she had her own copy, I'd point out.

    She's absurd enough without dubious talking points like that. That "frightened little girl" act, and can't remember anything from 36 years ago or last week, except that she's 100% certain Kavanaugh did something to her.

    She was a joke, and almost everybody has been terrified into not laughing at her.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    She also couldn't remember if she took her polygraph on the day of her grandmothers funeral or not. Between her total lack of organizational skills, memory, and that upward inflection on her voice, she is clearly an idiot.

    Was her doctoral dissertation a pop up book?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Robby is very impressed with this woman's pursuit of a fake science.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Perhaps it is her expertise in the field of psychology that has led to her belief in the infallibility of the polygraph and other forms of mysticism.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Your side lost, whiny goobers. Even Fox News says so!!

    Mark Page's book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh's freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses in this Kangaroo Court. (snort)

  • Headache||

    The Kangaroo court in which you use to support your position. How embarrassing?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    She spoke with no authority. She also demonstrates a number of characteristics related to her speech patterns that are common among women of ,ow intelligence. Chiefly her upper inflection. Basically a milder version of bimbo parody character Jillian on Family Guy, as voiced by Drew Barrymore.

    I'm guessing her doctoral dissertation was a pop up book.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>worth hearing

    on radio her opening sounded like it was read by an eight year old

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Christine Blasey Ford Was Worth Hearing, But No One on the Senate Judiciary Committee Was Listening"

    Maybe that's because uncorroborated testimony is and should be inconsequential.

    I'd call Robby a phony sack of shit, but I don't think I've ever seen him claim to be a libertarian. Do you claim to be a libertarian, Robby?

  • ||

    Libertarian or not I know he's advocated against baseless accusations sexual impropriety, application of arbitrary laws and sexual mores to teens and college students whom they shouldn't necessarily apply, and to subjecting the accused to whimsical kangaroo court hearings. Phony sack of shit doesn't begin to describe the unscrupulousness of Robby's character.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "A full investigation of this matter, and a fair adjudication of Kavanaugh, would require a significantly revised process. This isn't due process—this isn't even an honest attempt to determine what actually happened."

    Here's a tip for you Robby.

    Any affirmative condition claim about any conceivable aspect of existence in the Universe that can't be proven exactly as definitively as I can prove that my car has 4 wheels attached to isn't proven at all.

    Case closed.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    No steering wheel? How about a flywheel?

  • ThomasD||

    If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

  • TuIpa||

    Did he say exactly 4?

  • Sigivald||

    He did say "attempt to determine what actually happened".

    Which is not the same as proof.

    So, what does your counterclaim even refer to?

  • Don't look at me!||

    Did she / will she describe his penis? That's what the people want.

  • Oli||

    Yes, it's a mushroom penis too, like POTUS'. But a tiny bit bigger.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Huh. Been in a lot of locker rooms in my day, can't say I've noticed any mushroom wieners. Must be an east coast thing.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    When they've been in the dark fall confines too long, they tend to grow fungus. Gotta take them out at parties just to be sure.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Sounds like a botched circumcision to me.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Anomalous||

    That's why the Post has been hitting this story so hard. They want them some Pulitzers.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Links to A TWITTER POST AS PROOF.
    Is that why they're so easily brainwashed?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks anyone who drinks is a rapist.

  • TuIpa||

    And thinks he isn't instantly recognizable.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    LINKS TO A TWITTER FEED AS PROOF!!!

    GOOBERS DEFEND THE CRAZY HYSTERIA

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano defends the crazy hysteria of Satanic Daycares.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I keep telling him it's time for hospice, but he just won't listen.

  • Sigivald||

    It's a link to the source of the claim he is making.

    Not to proof it is true.

    That's what "sources" are, you see.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    It's a link to the source of the claim he is making.

    A TWITTER FEED!

    Not to proof it is true.

    Who said otherwise?

    That's what "sources" are, you see.

    WHO SAID OTHERWISE, SKIPPY?

    CONSERVATARD KNOWINGLY DEFENDS UNPROVEN SLANDER!
    These are not brilliant strategists (lol)

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    'This is BIG': Christine Blasey Ford's memory is in SERIOUS need of a WaPo fact check
    One blip in Ford testimony: She can't remember if she gave Post reporter her therapist's notes? That was just a few weeks — not years ago.

    — Robert A George (@RobGeorge) September 27, 2018

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    WARNING. Johnny links to .... A TWITTER FEED!

    AND THEY VOTE!

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Wait, WHAT? Why did Dr. Ford correct her own letter during her testimony?
    So Ford admitted to inaccuracies in her own letter to Feinstein. She pointed out a couple and was about to list more but got interrupted.

    — Jason Buttrill (@JasonButtrill) September 27, 2018

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Links to ANOTHER psycho source!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own psycho source, himself.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Is the Washington Post transcript a psycho source?

    Just search for "letter" in it, you'll find where she's reading her own letter, and changing things on the fly, and Feinstein interrupts her.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    'This isn't a good look': Christine Blasey Ford's 'fear of flying' narrative crashes and burns
    Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell seems to be challenging Dr. Ford's contention that she developed a fear of flying by pointing to a series of plane flights for work and vacation. pic.twitter.com/2CtPVvUNCk

    — Jim Roberts (@nycjim) September 27, 2018

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    We've already established that Dr. Ford is brave. That's what it's called when you fear a thing and do it anyway.

    Like continuing to attend parties where gang rapes were known to happen?

    Brave, brave indeed.

  • outcast||

    wait, that was Ford? I thought that was the 3rd one, went to 10 parties etc. so many "facts" and accusers to keep straight.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Diane confuses easily. And lies a lot.,
    YOU are correct. It's the third one. And she did not know until later why the guys were lining up outside the rooms.

    Umm, Diane?,
    On what wacky basis do you assume they were standing in line OUTSIDE the room .,. and the mass rapes were with the door open?

  • TuIpa||

    Go away Hihn.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Deal with the issues, sniveling coward.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Prove the assaults took place, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    That's WHY we need an investigation, Sluggo

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    For once I'll address your dumb ass. There will be no investigation, as this is not within the FBI's jurisdiction, and the report would be of no value. Your master Joe Biden went on about that at some length. As you are his pet, I'm sure you will listen to him.

    "The next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn't understand anything. FBI explicitly does not, in this case or any other case, reach a conclusion, period. Period."

    Now learn to obey your Marxist masters like a good little roadie. Also, go to hospice. Time to die.

  • Headache||

    Not only that, there is no statute of limitation on sexual assault in Maryland. Ford could have filed a complaint in 2012. That would have shown up in the FBI background check and Kavanaugh would not have been nominated. Civic duty? What bullshit!

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    MOAR ignorance by Headache. PROVEN

    Police Chief and State Attorney in Montgomnery County, where the assault allegedly occured

    In a letter, the police chief and state attorney in Montgomery County, where the assault allegedly occurred, said they would not investigate the incident without a complaint from Ford. They also noted they could do little to prosecute such a case — assault and attempted rape were misdemeanors in 1982 and subject to a one-year statute of limitations.

    Next lame excuse?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Last of the Shitheads
    For once I'll address your dumb ass.

    (sneer)

    There will be no investigation, as this is not within the FBI's jurisdiction,

    BWAAAA HAAAAA
    1) The President has requested the FBI Investigation .. HOURS before your bullshit.
    2) Just as President Bush (Sr) requested one for Anita Hill.

    "The next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn't understand anything. FBI explicitly does not, in this case or any other case, reach a conclusion, period. Period."

    BWAAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAA
    1) President Trump proved you full of shit,
    2) The Committee reaches the conclusion. The FBI investigates and reports verifiable facts.

    Most notable to me, Kavanaugh twice REFUSED to answer if he was the out of control drunk depicted in Mark Judges book as "Bart O'Kavanaugh." (wink wink) Is that because he was under oath? (lol)

  • Ron||

    they all hung out so paths must of crossed such that everyone would have know about rape parties.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Ford could have filed a complaint in 2012. That would have shown up in the FBI background check and Kavanaugh would not have been nominated.

    The year. 2012, DEMOLISHES your wacko conspiracy theories

    These are widely reported facts, Pay attention.

    1) She wanted it kept secret -- as most victims do -- INCLUDING PATTI DAVIS (Reagan's daughter)
    2) If it had not been leaked, she would have never been known and never testified.

    Anything else I can teach you?

  • mpercy||

    The brain is a funny thing, but I'm not sure how the incident described leads to a fear of flying. And since she obviously flies when it's convenient for her to, trying to connect this purported "fear of flying" to the incident certainly appears to have been a delay tactic--a convenient lie that sounds good to the victim mentality folks. If she'd said she was afraid that she would encounter Kavanaugh or even Judge, say in the hall waiting for her hearing, it would have been more believable than this supposed and convenient assault-induced fear of flying.

  • Here for the outrage||

    You encouraged this shit Robby. You and your huffpo buddies own this disgrace due to your failure to call bullshit when it was obvious, which was a week ago.

    Why did most every reasonable person know this was garbage for a week, while all you supposed journalists sat there mimicking NYT talking points?

    SAD!

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Because they are scared shitless of twitter mobs accusing them of misogyny. So they have to play like they are "considering all sides" bullshit, even when any reasonable person knows bullshit, and especially politically expedient bullshit, when they hear it.

  • Here for the outrage||

    He obviously wants a job at some progressive outlet where he can be the "edgy libertarian."

    It'll all come crashing to a halt when some purple haired screeching banshee calls him out for a years old post condemning the welfare state. HOW DARE HE DENY ME FREE STUFF?! I'M A HELPLESS HE/SHE/UNICORN!

    You can't win with them my dude. Better to just stick to reason, and Reason, because libertarians will always have fewer friends and more consistent principles.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Even Fox News says it was a debacle. Chris Wallace, Britt Hume and Judge Nap.
    That leaves you all alone. Twisting in the wind.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Dude, you watch Faux News? You must be some kind of republican conservatard.

  • Fairbanks||

    Republicans could have done better, but they are between a rock and a hard place. They don't believe that the nomination should be held up by last minute, questionable accusations, but they know that they have to try to appear to be accommodating. A full course attempt at trying to find the truth went out the window when these accusations came out of left field. There is no way that a precedent should be set to delay the process under these circumstances.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If the Democrats did indeed orchestrate this, if they produced an allegation out of the whole cloth, if they found a willing dupe, they will be rewarded for their efforts. Kavanaugh can't be confirmed. Regardless of his testimony, every journalist tonight will be beating the drum against him, making sure voters know what the every mainstream reporter knows for a fact, and that is that 35 years ago a Supreme Court pick from the most hated president ever attempted to rape someone. At least one Republican senator will succumb to that negative press.

  • DiegoF||

    This guy gets it! This is what is going to happen.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Yep.

  • John||

    Nope. They need two not one. Remember Pence would break a 50 50 tie. And one of the Red State Dems will likely be forced to vote for him. So, they probably would need three or maybe four Republicans. It isn't going to happen.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And any republican who breaks ranks on this should be horribly punished for it. BK must be confirmed, and then the democrats must be punished for what they have done here.

    Democrats must learn their place.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    "they will be rewarded for their efforts."

    Until Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett and she really does overturn Roe v Wade on day 1. And on that day I hope Kavanaugh sends a tweet, "I wouldn't have voted that way" .

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    If someone put Ford up to this, there ought to be some corroborating evidence out there to support this claim. Otherwise, it is a baseless claim that should be given no weight.

  • damikesc||

    If someone put Ford up to this, there ought to be some corroborating evidence out there to support this claim. Otherwise, it is a baseless claim that should be given no weight.

    It has as much evidence as her charges against Kavanaugh.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Whoooooosh.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So you finally admit that? Baby steps.

  • BYODB||

    Ok, who's paying her lawyer fee's? Honest question.

  • John C. Randolph||

    The lawyer's probably doing it gratis because it's going to make her a superstar on the leftard fundraising circuit. She'll be getting five-figure "speaking fees" at students' expense to sing her own praises as a "fighter for women".

    -jcr

  • Sigivald||

    That and pro-bono work is something lawyers do normally.

    The ABA wants them to do 50 hours a year, and I'm led to believe the local Bars similarly encourage it.

    Fame alone would be motivation here, too.

  • ||

    I doubt someone actually "put her up to it." Like Jackie from UVA, I think she floated into someone's attention who found her story useful and ran with it. She thinks they are her friends and that they will be on her side and vindicate her, when in fact they will use her like tissue and toss her aside, right as they are pasting the "I Believe You, Christine" bumper stickers on their Priuses.

  • BYODB||

    Pretty much this. Regardless of the truth behind her claims, she's a useful delay tool for Senate democrats and will be discarded like so many others before her as soon as she's no longer useful.

    That anyone doubts this after Feinstein sat on the letter for weeks is a sure sign that people just don't care about the sexual assault angle, they just care about the political weapon it represents. I'm certain that Democrats in the committee probably don't really believe her either, in fact they don't really care at all about the truth, they just know that they can't win the vote (without shenanigans) so they must delay.

    The fact they can then use it as a get out the vote issue is icing on the cake.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    t is a baseless claim that should be given no weight.

    Now that you've suffered humiliating defeat .... man up to the GOP's refusal for an FBI investigation.

    Even their own prosecutor RIDICULED the hearing at the end.
    And Fox News.

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Hihn.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • Nardz||

    Her lawyer is a partisan activist and connected to another accuser.
    That's already more evidence than she's provided in her allegation.
    Financial records can be investigated in her case as well.

  • BYODB||

    Yep, that's the rational conclusion most of us have made.

    Welcome to the post-rational period.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Your side lost, goobers, Even Fox News says so!!

    Mark Page's book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh's freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses .... REFUSED an investigation. (snort)

  • NoVaNick||

    Was Kavanaugh an asshole in his teen and young adult years who would get drunk and occasionally grope girls? No doubt-so too are most successful men regardless of political party-it comes with the territory. We are only hearing about his transgressions because it is politically convenient.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Wait, are you excusing this behavior??

  • TuIpa||

    Doesn't look like it, try reading better maybe?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Closing your eyes, blocking your ears and saying, "La la la la la la ..." does not make the universe disappear.

  • TuIpa||

    No one cares about how your sex partners avoided vomiting.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hihn, you rape school children, so you're not one to talk.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Was Kavanaugh an asshole in his teen and young adult years who would get drunk and occasionally grope girls? No doubt

    Really? While it's established that he was definitely a party-boy in high school and college, he apparently couldn't even close the deal on a good night kiss with Renate Dolphin.

    So far, the most salacious claims about him are either unverifiable, or outright denied by people who were actually there. Even his college roommate said that, at worst, he was a heavy drinker in college even though he believes the women accusing Kavanaugh. That seems to be the only verifiable fact about his past that's come out so far.

    I think it's telling that my liberal acquaintances and former classmates on Derpbook are largely staying away from this, considering they typically spent most of the 1990s in an alcohol-induced fog. The only one who's been hammering on this is an ex-pat neo-puritan progressive who gets comments on it from her hypocrite Boomer neighbors.

  • John||

    None of my liberal friends are saying a word about this either, not even the crazy women who buy into the "rape culture" bullshit. I find that very telling.

  • Necron 99||

    My lib sister and her echo chamber friends are loudly singing poor rape victim's blues. Although the echo chamber has occasionally had a few dissonant voices sprinkled in which is odd and amusing.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Jesus Christ, Robbie, grow a fucking brain. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE AT THIS POINT "to determine what actually happened."

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    There was no FBI investigation. (yawn)

    I'm listening to Kavanaugh's opening. Pitiful. Reverses his own prior testimomy!

  • TuIpa||

    And here we have Hihn getting basic facts wrong because he's a leftist and senile.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • Brendan||

    Are these supposed to be links?

  • Sigivald||

    The FBI would magically figure out The Real Truth, after all.

    With time travel and stuff.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Your side lost, goobers, Even Fox News says so!!

    Mark Page's book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh's freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses. (snort)

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I believe, with a few possible exceptions [well within in the single digits], everyone in the Senate had made up their mind as to how they would vote long before Feinstein tossed in the Anita Hill strategy backed up with #METOO; "Borking" Kavanaugh didn't work, and Democrats were desperate enough to try this to sabotage the confirmation.

    Beyond that, anyone can [and do] say anything. I don't know if Ford is outright lying or is confused [I'm pretty sure it is one of the two] but no matter tribes are cannot believe what tribes want to believe. There is no way to either prove or disprove these allegations, without further sworn testimony [but wait, did not two men offer that very thing, saying she confused them with the judge?].

  • Libertymike||

    Due process requires rejecting flagitious Machiavellian character assassinations by the #metoo mafia.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Flagitious: this site is so good for my vocabulary. It's like a word [or more] a day calendar.

  • Libertymike||

    Yesterday, on an alt-right site, I learned me a new word: ructions

  • El Oso||

    Yes, I am going to use that word even though I can't pronounce it, don't know what it means and am too lazy to find out...

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Imagine what would happen if you learned Polish. You'd be like a kid in a candy store!

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Due process requires an investigation. Get a better excuse for the humiliating defeat.

  • TuIpa||

    "humiliating defeat"

    Hihn's nickname in Hihn School.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Due process requires an investigation.

    Feinstein sent a letter to the FBI weeks ago. The FBI declined to start an investigation. What could they investigate? Physical evidence that somehow lasted thirty five years? Look into every possible party that might have happened in Maryland over a two year period more than three decades ago since she can't be more specific than that?

    It would be easier for them to investigate the root cause of your towering stupidity, but even that is a mystery that defies natural causes.

  • Sigivald||

    Eh, due process is also for criminal proceedings anyway.

    There's no due process around confirmation hearings; the result cannot deprive one of life, liberty, or property.

    ("An investigation" would be great if there was ANY POSSIBLE GODDAMN WAY it would actually uncover anything, sure.

    I don't live in that dream world either.)

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yeah, that "due process is for criminal proceedings" translates as, "As long as we don't do it in a court room, we're entitled to destroy your life without due process."

    Not impressed with that sentiment.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Maybe she has a blue dress hanging in the closet. Only the FBI could convince a court to issue a warrant.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Your side lost, goobers. Even Fox News says so!!

    Mark Page's book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh's freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses. (snort)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Oh Robby its clear what happened by what she says.

    She does not want Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS, she can lie, and she had a general knowledge of his whereabouts 35+ years ago.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Little boy Robby is bitter and upset because she's an even worse liar than he is.

    "I'm terrified of houses with just one front door and even more scared to death of flying, but traveling around the world is one of my favorite hobbies." ROFLMAO!!!

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    [jumps out of the water, slaps Mikey with an octopus, dives back under water]

  • TuIpa||

    You 're the only one hanging on to your sad, stupid fascination with the guy. Just leave like your loser fuck buddies did.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    See them SQUEAL at today's humiliating defeat. Even Fox reports it was a debacle -- Wallace, Hume and Judge Nap. Leaves you twisting in the wind, all alone.

  • TuIpa||

    Are you again unaware that you squealed that out Hihn?

    Go away, you weren't anybody ever.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If Mitchell's ultimate goal was to undermine Ford's credibility, she failed.

    From what I saw, her goal seemed to be getting at the truth. A fool's errand. This was difficult to watch, which made it the perfect capper to the shitshow that preceded.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "If Mitchell's ultimate goal was to undermine Ford's credibility, she failed."

    Ford had no credibility to undermine to begin with.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    YOU just made an ass of yourself!

    At the end, Mitchell RIDICULED the entire hearing -- described how her PROFESSIONALS investiage sex abuse claims. Grassley gambled and lost. Bigly

  • TuIpa||

    You realize the only thing anyone does with you anymore is pity you or make fun of you Hihn?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No one here but you and Tony thinks she has credibility. You look like a giant deranged asshole. The punchline to a bad joke.

    Kill yourself "Hihn".

  • Headache||

    Hihn can not kill himself, he derives to much pleasure from beating his testicles with a hammer.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yeah, that whole line of questions got the lawyers all whipped up so they turned the mic off and told her what to say.

    Fucking Scumbag lawyers suborning perjury.

    Ford does not know who paid for the polygraph. Jesus Christ, what a political hit job.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Ford does not know who paid for the polygraph. Jesus Christ, what a political hit job.

    Watch the hearings. See proof you're full of shit.

  • TuIpa||

    Like when you lie about not being Hihn, Hihn?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano in his manic sockpuppet flogging, keeps fucking up his links.

    Maybe if he wasn't a hysterical pudding of copypasta ignorance, he could figure out how to Properly Poast.

  • Sigivald||

    The two-question polygraph that couldn't demonstrate anything at all in any case?

    Eh, I wouldn't care who paid for it either.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Asshole keeps posting Twitter feeds as a source!
    They also said it was :"typical" and it is.

  • TuIpa||

    Hi, I realize you're old as fuck Hihn, but stop with the "Twitter isn't a source" it makes you look ancient AND oblivious.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Tulpa,
    Twitter is the Media .. not the source (smirk)

    Still confused? WHO POSTED IT?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Johnny posts his FIFTH Twitter feed!!! (gasp)

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    This isn't due process—this isn't even an honest attempt to determine what actually happened.

    Those of us who have seen a half dozen of these shit shows over our lives knew this the moment Ford said "something happened to me 35 years ago..."

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Robby, come on! Republicans care about due process and fairness. Democrats care about power. I mean, learn the basics before you press the publish button.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Too bad you didn't care about paying your mortgage.

  • sarcasmic||

    Who even remembers what happened in high school? Who even wants to remember those days? Well, other than losers who peaked at seventeen. This is so stupid. If Tony and lc had a child, even it would be as stupid as this shit show.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I cant have more kids with you and Tony up my ass looking for answers.

  • ||

    Who even remembers what happened in high school? Who even wants to remember those days?

    I remember HS pretty well (~20 yrs. ago). There were plenty of us who were outright criminals. I don't remember every crime but for the ones I remember I could probably get within a week of when they actually took place. I'd be hard pressed to say any of the classmates/accomplices then are the same people today.

    Seems like Reason routinely runs stories about how people who committed outright felonies shouldn't be held to a lesser legal or social standard after they've been reformed and/or time served. Even if Ford's story is taken, without question, as100% solid-gold truth, it's not clear we could've convicted little Bretty Kavanaugh for it.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, high school wasn't 35 years ago for me but I couldn't tell you even within a month of what happened or even if anything happened in the first place. It wasn't a particularly memorable time for me, and I didn't drink or do drugs at the time.

  • sarcasmic||

    *wouldn't*

  • NoVaNick||

    At this point, Kavanaugh should withdraw and Trump should nominate Amy Coney Barrett. I'm sure they don't have any dirt on her, until they buy some.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    She is Catholic and thus covered up rape. Someone will say so.

  • sarcasmic||

    I still think Trump should nominate Bill Cosby. I mean, if he's gonna nominate a rapist, might as well nominate one that's been convicted.

  • sarcasmic||

    Oh, and before the usual suspects climb up my ass, that comment was not meant to be construed as calling Mr K a rapist.

  • Libertymike||

    He was not convicted the first time around. The state of Pennsylvania was permitted a do-over.

    In my view, due process means that a hung jury should not enable the state a second bite at the apple.

  • John||

    I agree Mike. I also really don't like how they allowed more testimony from alledged former victims in the second trial than in the first. He hung the jury. So the judge changed the rules to benefit the prosecution and they tried him again. That is bullshit.

  • Libertymike||

    Did you see that O.J. made the news? He advised Cosby to "watch his back."

    I made reference to O.J. in the morning thread, and I am surprised that nobody else has said anything about it, here or anywhere else, at least for comical purposes:

    Judge K is the real killer for whom O.J. has been indefatigably searching all these years.

  • John||

    That is right. And he was also the unibomber.

  • Libertymike||

    The last couple of weeks, I can't tell you how many times I have heard either Rush or Mark Steyn or some of the Boston conservative talk show guys articulate the question, "what's next, we will learn that Judge Kavanaugh did X?" Nobody has said the O.J. murders.

    I suppose you could throw in Vince Foster.

  • John||

    The OJ murders is the best one I have heard. I can't believe I didn't think of that or hear it before now.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Kavanaugh is guilty, but not in the way anyone understands. The fact is that after these events, he will eventually come into have access to a time machine, where he will travel back to the 80's and, after using advanced camouflage technology to make himself appear like his teen persona, proceed to rape Ford out of revenge. From there he jumps forward a few years and organizes the rape society to get the others.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Did you see that O.J. made the news? He advised Cosby to "watch his back."

    Yeah, I don't think Cosby's going to have the same leeway in jail that OJ did during his time. By all accounts, OJ was a really popular guy in prison and the other inmates left him alone, no doubt because they think it's awesome that he got away with killing his ex-wife. MUH DIK isn't enough street cred for that crowd.

  • Libertymike||

    Okay, but what about the Coz being an 81 year old and frail?

    From ex-cons with whom I have discussed the subject, I have gleaned the following:

    (1) Some, but not most, claim that rapists of adult women get the pedophile treatment

    (2) All claim that pedophiles get the pedophile treatment.

  • TuIpa||

    Then you don't know anything about prison.

    Coz has money. He's safe as fuck.

  • Ron||

    O.J. could also fight back an 80 year old comedian not so much

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Didn't you k ow that Cosby is secretly Darth Negro, and super deadly with with force powers? He will slaughter all who oppose him.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Didn't you k ow that Cosby is secretly Darth Negro, and super deadly with with force powers? He will slaughter all who oppose him.

  • BYODB||


    In my view, due process means that a hung jury should not enable the state a second bite at the apple.

    Absolutely agree. A hung jury should defer to the notion that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. A tie thus goes in favor of the defendant.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Good catch there. but "rapist" and "climb up my ass" in the same sentence? That strait up triggering bro.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    (lol) Hear the losers SQUEAL.

  • TuIpa||

    Are you unaware that you squealed that out Hihn?

    Lol

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Are you unaware that you squealed that out?

    Did the words type themselves?

    Lol

    DID THE WORDS TYPE THEMSELVES?

    PROOF Tulpa is a psycho in denial. Even Fox News says so!!

    Even ....
    Fox .....
    News....

  • Gilbert Martin||

    What would be funny is Kavanaugh withdrawing and Trump immediately nominates Janice Rogers Brown (who anathema to the left) and the Senate immediately votes to confirm her without holding any hearings at all.

  • John||

    It would serve them right. As it is, I think all this is accomplishing is motivating the hell out of the GOP base in a year in which the Republican Congress has done everything it could to destroy their supporters' motivation.

  • DiegoF||

    You think it will motivate them more than it will the Dems after Kavanaugh is pulled and the Republicans can't get a replacement done in time? This will be a Democratic holiday for decades to come.

  • John||

    I don't think Kavanaugh is going to be pulled. I think he is going to be confirmed for that very reason. The Republicans in the Senate know that refusing to confirm him would kill them in the midterms. And his nomination is not going to be pulled. Trump sure as hell isn't going to back down and it doesn't appear Kavanaugh will either. So, they are going to have to give him a vote and when they do, they will confirm him. They won't have any other choice.

  • Overt||

    There is no "Republicans in the Senate" acting as one here. There is only two Republicans, Murkowski and Collins. They are watching the polls to see if voting with the GOP will get them booted out of office or not. Everything being done by the GOP is to give them cover to vote.

    Feckless/Spineless/Incompetent whatever you want to call the GOP. What they do really doesn't matter. It is what those two Senators do that matters.

  • DiegoF||

    Since Kavanaugh was probably the person on Trump's Federalist Society list that most of us like the least, that would be a welcome way to rescue that. But the general fallout would be horrible.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    What would be funny is Kavanaugh withdrawing

    What's INFINITELY funnier is THAT would had the Senate to the Dems ... as a gift ... with a bow.

    And these people are allowed to vote!

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    The progressive / libertarian alliance wound find a way to prevent Barrett's confirmation as well. Orange Hitler managed to put Gorsuch in the seat that rightly belongs to Garland, but that will be all he accomplishes with respect to the Supreme Court. And when Democrats are back in the White House in early 2021, they'll appoint several more justices similar to RBG.

    #SaveRoe
    #SUPER-PRECEDENT

  • dan'o en barrel||

    Except that Garland wouldn't have been confirmed by the GOP majority senate. Mitch et al blocked the process entirely to avoid the inevitable gang-bang they'd get from the press throughout the hearings and after the "no" votes tallied up against Garland.

  • newshutz||

    "justices similar to RGB" : old, frail, and close to death?

    scarier would be justices similar to Kagan.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • ||

    Holy fuck I'm glad I didn't watch. Maps on posterboard? People don't have copies of the handouts? Jesus Christ did Ford read the totality of her accusations off of PowerPoint slides too? They couldn't even put on a properly organized and orderly shitshow.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "As I wrote previously, due process requires impartial judges and juries. "

    A Supreme Court nomination hearing isn't a trial in a court of law.

    If it were, due process would have stopped it before it ever got started.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "I am here today not because I want to be," said Ford in her testimony. "I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school."

    That's an odd way of describing a gang rape which Kavanaugh participated in.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Correct. One might say it's a way of saying he didn't do anything to her.

  • damikesc||

    "Brett did bad things to me. Was it rape? Did he spill a beer on me? AT THIS POINT, DOES IT EVEN MATTER?"

  • ||

    That's an odd way of describing a gang rape which Kavanaugh participated in.

    Found! Footage of Kavanaugh sexually assaulting Christine Ford in 1982. Or maybe it was Mike Meyers and Tia Carrere, I'd need Mark Judge's testimony to confirm it.

  • chipper me timbers||

    to summarize:

    "Turns out this was a spectacle and a shitshow with no real substance"

    Well duh.

  • Ben_||

    It's as honest as a 35 year old complaint about alledged clumsy teenage randiness deserves.

  • John||

    There is nothing to investigate. She can provide no evidence to coborate her story. No witnesses have come forward to support her version. I know Robby is dumb as a post but surely even he understands that there is nothing to investigate here. Mark Judge contradicts Ford's account. What is the point in calling him to testify? We know what he has to say and it is that Ford is lying. Calling him to testify is only going to make Ford's account less credible. And what is the point of doing that if you already don't believe her? When the accusor provides no corroboration to her story, you only investigate further if you think there might be evidence that would corroborate her story. There is no reason to beleive there is and if there were, it would not be Judge who provides it. Does Robby actually believe there are people who have information relating to this alleged event who somehow haven't heard of it and come foward already? He might actually be that stupid but more likley he knows that and is being his usual mendacious self.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Well, Judge is a liar too. Just like Kavanaugh.

    That is the premise this whole farce is grounded on.

    I admit that I didnt she would show. Then she read her prepared statement as one could expect such a dedicated Lefty believer would. The questioning is exposing Ford for what she is. Its why not a single Democrat has yielded their time to the Arizona prosecutor to ask more questions.

    This is a show. 226M views on the C-SPAN video. Its a show that will ultimately fail, like all Lefty propaganda TV shows before it.

  • ||

    Mark Judge contradicts Ford's account. What is the point in calling him to testify? We know what he has to say and it is that Ford is lying. Calling him to testify is only going to make Ford's account less credible. And what is the point of doing that if you already don't believe her?

    Remember John, this is just a job interview. Just like any other job interview where they subpoena your HS buddies to testify on behalf of your alleged victim.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I'm curious about something, and as I recall you're a lawyer, right? Last night I saw an interview with Alan Dershowitz and he made an interesting point, I thought: that instead of a prosecutor the Republicans should have used an experienced defense attorney since the latter is going to be better at cross-examination. Does that line up with your experience?

  • John||

    I agree with him about that. When would a prosecutor ever cross examin an alledged rape victim? They never would. And doing so is a very special skill. And it is not something you would expect a prosecutor to have.

  • Libertymike||

    The interview was on Tucker. I saw it and I agree with you and Dershowitz.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Indeed, Ford spoke eloquently about what she remembered and what she did not.

    So now we need clear definitions of not only "credible" but "eloquent".

  • John||

    Appearently, if you are not eloquent, you must be lying. Robby really contributes some top flight thinking to reason.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    He meant to say "eminently eloquent" which differentiates her from the merely eloquent in the same way that "eminently plausible" is vastly superior to ordinary plausibility. To be sure.

  • ||

    So now we need clear definitions of not only "credible" but "eloquent".

    He means the totally-not-condescending-and-biased kind of eloquent. You know, the way people used to say Barack Obama was eloquent. Except she's nowhere near as eloquent as Obama.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    cred·i·ble
    ˈkredəb(ə)l/Submit
    adjective
    able to be believed; convincing.
    "few people found his story credible"
    synonyms: believable, plausible, tenable, able to hold water, conceivable, likely, probable, possible, feasible, reasonable, with a ring of truth, persuasive
    "only one of the so-called witnesses could provide a credible story"
    capable of persuading people that something will happen or be successful.
    "a credible threat"
    synonyms: believable, plausible, tenable, able to hold water, conceivable, likely, probable, possible, feasible, reasonable, with a ring of truth, persuasive
    "only one of the so-called witnesses could provide a credible story"

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    el·o·quent
    ˈeləkwənt/Submit
    adjective
    fluent or persuasive in speaking or writing.
    "an eloquent speech"
    synonyms: fluent, articulate, expressive, silver-tongued; More
    clearly expressing or indicating something.
    "the touches of fatherliness are eloquent of the real man"
    synonyms: expressive, meaningful, suggestive, revealing, telling, significant, indicative
    "her glance was more eloquent than words"

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    From where I sit neither of these apply

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I suspect the "definition" of "eloquent" that will be used here is "she cried because those great big meanies were picking on her".

  • Jerryskids||

    I was going to remain silent about this, but I was brutally raped repeatedly by Corey Booker many years ago. What has finally given me the courage to come forward with this is Booker's own statement that sexual assault victims who bravely come forward and speak out are true heroes. Whew! What a heady feeling being a hero is! And to think it's all just a matter of accusing somebody of sexual assault that makes one a hero!

  • John||

    When I was in college, Chuck Schummer held me down and rubbed his bare moobs all over me while I was passed out at a beer party. It was horrible.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We'll get you a calendar of when he was in your area, so you can tell us when.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I think that was just a wet dream you had once or twice.

  • John||

    No one dreams about the moobs.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Ok, nightmare.

  • TuIpa||

    No bitch, you Freudian slipped and it's too late.

  • Nardz||

    +1

  • Aloysious||

    Well, Chuck is chubby enough to fit your well known tastes...

    ;)

  • Jerryskids||

    Oo! Oo! And now Kamala Harris - did I mention she brutally and repeatedly raped me many years ago as well? - is suggesting I'm a hero as well!

  • Azathoth!!||

    We stand today where we've been this whole time.

    Something happened to Ford at some time and in some place. That much is certain. There were other people there--who all deny it, but most especially Brett Kavanaugh was there. THAT is the very most certain.

    Where? We STILL don't know.

    When? We STILL don't know.

    Any other attendees? Everyone she's named has said 'NO'.

    This is a load of bullshit. It was a load of bullshit, and it will stay a load of bullshit.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Something happened to Ford at some time and in some place. That much is certain.

    No it isn't. There is literally no evidence to support this.

  • Azathoth!!||

    So nothing has ever happened to Ford? Nothing? She was born, right? That's something.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Fair enough. I thought your point was that something *traumatic* happened.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    she was able to speak with authority about memory and trauma.

    By the way, if trauma causes us to not remember things correctly, is it possible that she's thinking of a different boy that attacked her and trauma has caused to remember the wrong person, situations or incidents? Or perhaps, maybe a family member gang raped her and she's created an entire narrative around it happening at multiple house parties?

    This is becoming shockingly like the McMartin child abuse scandal.

    "The kids remember devil worshiping rituals, sexual abuse and even a shark tank in the basement of school!"

    "Is it possible the children are confused?"

    "No, not possible."

    "I'd like to note for the record that at one point, one of the children in question pointed out the Sheriff and implicated him as being present during the ritual abuse."

    "Oh, well, yeah, it's clear the children are confused."

    Remember, they got a fucking CONVICTION on that.

  • Jerryskids||

    Remember too that the most traumatic of incidents causes one to blank it out from one's memory, so having no memory of a traumatic incident proves one has been subjected to the most traumatic of incidents. Think of all the horrible things you don't remember ever happening and realize that this is proof that all those things happened. Do you remember a Satanic Mass where Hillary Clinton ate a live baby? Me neither! I wonder if we were both at the same one, or are we not remembering two different ones?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Dude, that was a SugarFree story, and all of us here were there in our mind's eye.

  • TuIpa||

    Not all of us, I was bored to tears by it and skipped it.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Jesus. My life must have been an endless stream of traumatic events because I don't remember any of them!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties spent all this time and effort and Kavanaugh will still be confirmed.

  • NoVaNick||

    At this point, the republicans have nothing to lose by confirming him. Its not like the progs can be any more pissed off than they already are. Or they can nominate Amy Comey Barrett, they still have time and she ahs been vetted. If the progs try to smear her, they will come across as anti-Catholic AND anti-woman.

  • John||

    You are right. They have nothing to lose by confirming him and a whole lot to lose if they walk away from him. They are going to confirm him.

  • CDRSchafer||

    I have no faith in the RINO squishes. Their careers are all about being perfumed princesses. A vote for Kavenaugh is a vote to be a target of violent antifa-Democrat lunatics. A vote against will be grumbled about by normal people but we are not evil lunatics like Democrats are.

  • Overt||

    This. Murkowski and Collins. Those are the two people with something to lose. The republicans need to make this go so that they have at least a small belief that voting for Kav won't cost them their seats.

  • Ron||

    I saw a picture of Feinstein talking to Murkowski yesterday, feinstein was in her space literally blocking her path and feinstein got everyone else out of hearing range. it was a threatening stance of feinstein and I'm curious what she said to her

    https://www.palmerreport. com/analysis/dianne-feinstein-lisa- murkowski-hush/13062/

  • ||

    If the progs try to smear her, they will come across as at least anti-Catholic AND anti-woman.

    Remember those goddamned obstructionist Republicans in Congress? Good times!

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Or they can nominate Amy Comey Barrett, they still have time and she ahs been vetted. If the progs try to smear her, they will come across as anti-Catholic AND anti-woman.

    There's nothing remotely anti-Catholic about pointing out Barrett's hostility to reproductive rights. Because "Catholic" and "anti-abortion" aren't interchangeable at all. In fact, many of this country's leading politicians who support abortion access are also devout Catholics, like John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi.

  • Seamus||

    I was getting ready to respond with sputtering disbelief at the claim that John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi were anything like "devout Catholics." Then I saw that the claim was by OBL, Reason's answer to Titania McGrath, Well played, sir (or madam).

  • DiegoF||

    Mitchell does not seem to have wrapped up anything with a knockout blow. Not that I blame her. I'm just saying that would have been the only way to rescue this.

  • John||

    I don't see why you think this is killing Kavanaugh or changing anything. No one who didn't believe her before this believes here now. And the political calculus of confirming Kavanaugh is exactly the same. Kavanaugh is not going to step aside. He cannot without admitting guilt. Trump isn't going to pull his nomination. So, the Senate is going to have to vote. And they are going to vote to confirm him to avoid a revolt by the GOP base. There is really no other way this can play out.

  • DiegoF||

    I trust you more than all the pundits put together--for one thing, the only trial lawyers among them are too busy hailing her as--no kidding--the single most credible witness they have ever seen in their entire careers. (Although as noted I have not seen any conservative pundit say anything bad about how this made Ford look.)

    I will like to see what you have to say after seeing the footage.

  • John||

    I am a horrible optimist about things sometimes. But, there is a lot of pressure on red state dems up for re-election to vote to confirm him. And Kavanaugh wins a 50 50 tie. So it will take at least two Republicans to cave and no Democrats to cave to defeat him. That is going to be tough. The other thing Kavanaugh has going for him is that he is such a member of the establshment. I find it hard to believe that even shitbags like Flake and Sasse are really going to turn on some Ivy League educated former Bush guy. These people protect their own.

  • ||

    I am a horrible optimist about things sometimes.

    This is my fear: this GOP has consistently demonstrated itself fully capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

  • DiegoF||

    Since you're one of our resident scholars of establishmentarianism (though you're no Just Say'n), that brings up an interesting thought.

    Perhaps it was in fact yet another stroke of genius for Trump to nominate the biggest insider on the Federalist Society list. No reason to think any of the mavericks we like wouldn't have seen an accusation from junior high or something; and in that case a lot of Swamp Republicans might be a bit more willing to shrug about it. Eh, what a shame we couldn't get the guy confirmed. Next.

    Of course, like I said yesterday it's pretty much 100% that the next vacancy goes to Coney Barrett--whether or not it's RBG's. Matter of fact, all SCOTUS justices will be female from now on. Let's hope they didn't say something transphobic in nursery school.

  • BYODB||


    Matter of fact, all SCOTUS justices will be female from now on. Let's hope they didn't say something transphobic in nursery school.

    Since Kagan was confirmed and didn't recuse herself on the ACA even though she was one of the people specifically hired to advocate for it, yeah, I'd say that a woman can apparently withstand more scrutiny by specifically being exempted from it in todays society.

  • Headache||

    The feminist left will cut your balls off just because you have them. That cunt from Hawaii demanded for you to be silent. They are intent on removing your rights black, brown, yellow, white or any combination there of, if you have a penis, you are a target! Remember the only people with reproductive rights are women. Men do not have that right. It is becoming obvious they want to remove your right to speech as well.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies..

    1) He claims he was legally allowed to drink beer, but his drinking was illegal. The drinking age in Maryland changed to 21, before he became a senior, and he was not 18 as a junior. Associated Press

    2) He also lied that the other four people at the party have "denied" the events. HE is the only one denying it. The others all said they could not remember it, BIG difference. Only one other student was in the room, Mark Judge, and even he did not deny it happened, only that he could not recall it. AP Fact Check

    Most notable to me, Kavanaugh twice REFUSED to answer if he was the out of control drunk depicted in Mark Judges book as "Bart O'Kavanaugh." (wink wink) Is that because he was under oath? (lol)

    Check my sources. If recent history on this topic is a guide, this will now be followed by the typical raging hatred and personal attacks by Trump's loyal cyber-bullies NEVER any SUPPORTED challenge to the known facts.

    Because: Left - Right = Zero
    Both authoritarian, less than 40% of Americans, and still shrinking..

    It's over Trumpsters. Deal with it.

  • IceTrey||

    Why is drunken high school groping disqualifying in the first place? That old fart Grassley should have strangled the entire thing in it's crib.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Word. Everyone has lost their minds

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    (lol) It wasn't groping.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Kamala Harris just got her 5 minutes to question CBF. As far I could tell, she spent 5 minutes talking about how brave CBF is, how it's completely normal for someone to sit on allegations for 35 years, and did not ask a single question during her allotted time.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It almost seems as if getting to the truth is not the goal here.

  • geo1113||

    You got a chuckle and a no kidding out of me, Paul.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Getting to the truth in this case is literally impossible. That's what happens what you have an allegation, a denial, and no evidence!

  • A Thinking Mind||

    I guess I expected the Democrats opposing Kavanaugh to want more focus on Blasey Ford's testimony. Instead they all just wanted to get their own comments on the record, when they've already had months to get comments on the record.

    I would have thought they'd have done things like ask questions that allow Ford to explain more why she didn't say anything about this for 30 years.

  • BYODB||

    Democrats wanted sound bites that they can spoon feed to media outlets of them believing Ford and Republicans asking a 'victim' questions.

    It's been pure optics from the very beginning, and if there's one thing we should know by now is that optics are all the electorate cares about as a whole. No one even remembers the hearings themselves where Democrats looked like fools and children, and where they were obviously in lock-step opposition regardless of any facts.

    The truth of the matter isn't something that can be verified or proven, and everyone knows it. Thus they use it purely for the theater aspect and in that sense it will ultimately be successful. There aren't enough principled rationalists left in our society to get outraged over this clear political theater.

  • DiegoF||

    None of the Democrats did much of anything different. But not sure we've gotten anything of a punchline from Mitchell yet.

  • AlmightyJB||

    She may be telling the truth but there is not one credible thing about her. Her profession does not help her credibility especially when a conservative is involved.

  • CDRSchafer||

    You mean the profession of repressed memory BS lacks credibility?

  • AlmightyJB||

    That not to mention that these are the same people teaching students the mantra "by any means necessary". To Marxist the ends always justify the means and This guy was painted as the devil himself by latest groups. So she starts out with a high bar as far as I'm concerned and she can't manage the lowest bar imaginabl.

  • AlmightyJB||

    By Leftest groups.

  • ducksalad||

    Why does anyone think there even should be due process or even much listening?

    Even ideally, the purpose of a congressional hearing is not to resolve disputes, it is not to give anyone "closure", it is not to generate fairness or justice. Ideally, it is to help undecided senators get information if they need it. Historically, there often was no hearing and sometimes not any debate, because there weren't any senators in need of more information to make up their mind.

    The purpose does not require due process. It doesn't even require listening to both sides. If a senator opposes Kavanaugh based on his judicial philosophy or just straight fear for Roe v. Wade, listening to these hearing is a waste of their time.

  • damikesc||

    I confided in some close friends that I had an experience with sexual assault.

    But not once before 2012. Weird.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Also, who? If they were "close friends", then surely this fine upstanding honest professional woman would remember their names, right?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Soave, a Senate committee confirmation hearing is less suited to determining what happened in a sexual assault allegation than a university disciplinary board. I have no idea what you expected to happen.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Ford can go straight to hell and take Feinstein with her. She can be confirmed there.

  • DiegoF||

    Ari Fleischer. Of course he's not even a lawyer.

  • DiegoF||

    Lindsay Graham spitting fire outside the hearing room. Never thought I'd want to hear him open his mouth to say much of anything.

  • John||

    One of the things I most hate Feinstein for these days is helping to create circumstances where I agree with Lindsay Graham. What a monster that woman is.

  • DesigNate||

    No shit, right!?!

  • Tony||

    You hate her because of the letter after her name. You have no independent thoughts. You are the monster.

  • John||

    Tony you have so much anger and unrequited love going here. You really need to work on that.

  • Tony||

    This must be a bad day for you.

    Doctor's orders: don't put all your emotional support behind the Evil Lying Party.

  • John||

    It is like every day a great day for me Tony. You know that.

  • Tony||

    Oh, benzos?

  • John||

    Good God you really are in love with me. Yeah, you need to talk to someone about that.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Such a good little fascist. So convinced that when his team gains total power he won't be up against the wall.

  • TuIpa||

    No Tony, that would be a great day for YOU.

    But if you took the whole bottle, then it would be great for us.

  • BYODB||

    It's the same thing I keep saying about Trump, please god stop making me defend him! I wanted Rand Paul, not this time travelling Democrat.

  • Rob Misek||

    #fuckyou

  • CDRSchafer||

    "The Republicans aren't really interested in the truth, either. If they were, they should have summoned Mark Judge—a friend of Kavanaugh and alleged witness to the incident—to testify, at the very least. They did not."

    Yes, dignify the show trial further by having alleged witnesses (who are already on record as denying being a witness or anything else) put on trial too. We need a bigger circus.

  • ||

    There's no sugar coating it. Kavanaugh needs to step down!

    Tell you what. That's just about the stupidest thing the Republicans could do. Why in the world would you cede any space to the DNC's narrative? Worse, you legitimize this type of behaviour for future nominations of ANY side.

  • John||

    If he steps down or they vote him down, they are as much as admitting that the Democrats must have been right. The only way forward is to confirm him. The Democrats are going to say they are all rape apologists no matter what they do. And confirming him is not only the right thing to do, it is what their supporters demand of them.

  • DiegoF||

    No doubt about it, that would be unspeakably, obviously idiotic. 100% yes from me.

    Of course, does "that would be unspeakably, obviously idiotic" make it less, or more likely that the Republicans will do it?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Haven't been able to watch any of this shitshow since I'm at work, but it sounds like it's unfolding roughly as I thought it would. A complete farcical clusterfuck after which nothing will be determined, no new facts uncovered, and no one's opinions about who to believe will be changed.

  • John||

    They should have never had a public hearing. They should have sent a staffer from each side out to California to interview her and then let the members read a transcript. There was no point in having a public hearing other than to slander Kavanaugh and make the whole thing a circus.

  • Ron||

    What i heard t day is that CBF's lawyers aka democrats, for some reason never informed her of the Committies proposal to come to her. Can we say grand standing game play by forcing her to a national tellivised event in an attempt to make republicans look bad. it just proves that CBF was used by the DNc and will be abandoned as soon as her usefulness is up

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Actually, the surprising thing was how Rachel Mitchell (cross examiner for the Republicans) handled this. She was extremely delicate, and she spent her time clarifying minor details. The format was terrible for her, clearly, since she'd spend her 5 minutes building to her point, only to have to cede 5 minutes for a Democratic Senator to make a speech (and ask no questions).

  • Rob Misek||

    Since the amount of elapsed time and the context is irrelevant, and the fact that everyone has moved on...

    When I was in elementary school we used to count things out with a jovial, "Eeny,meeny,miny,moe catch a nigger by the toe". It was great fun.

    Why stop at 35 years?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki. /Eeny,_meeny,_miny,_moe

  • Eddy||

    Seriously? Even in the dark ages we said "tiger."

    Pssht.

  • DiegoF||

    Next you're going to tell Rob your playground friends didn't play "Put the Jew in the Oven, Watch Him Burn, Burn, Burn, Crispy Dirty Jew Hitler Was Right" in whatever cucked hippie commune you grew up in.

  • JeffreyL||

    The only way for this to have been worth something would have been for her to file a police report in the county in Maryland where this was supposed to have occurred. She chose not too. For what i assume are obvious reasons.

  • Tony||

    She was 15?

  • TuIpa||

    Not for the last 35 years.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Not only did she never file a report with any authorities, she never even so much as filed a civil suit, despite the fact that this guy has been a legitimate public figure for at least 20 years.

    That might explain why law enforcement in Montgomery County has politely been telling the elected officials there who have been pressuring them to initiate a criminal investigation to go drop dead.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    I wonder what you consider obvious reasons, Maryland doesn't have a statute of limitations for felony sexual assault charges. It might be really hard to get a jury to convict on this, but a prosecution of Kavenaugh for assaulting Ford 35 years ago would not be time barred.

  • PavePusher||

    For a person who claimes to be afraid of flying, she apparently does a lot of it.

  • jdd6y||

    If Trump nominated Bill Clinton would the Democrats confirm him? Is there any doubt? This is kabuki theater. Even if I believed her I'd confirm. Had she reported in back then it would have been pleaded down to a slap on the wrist, or maybe just a verbal warning, and been sealed in the juvenile record. 40 years of services as an adult later and this disqualifies you? There is a reason 17 year olds are not supposed to drink -- they do dumb shit. What if he was 13 and pulled a girl's bra strap or grabbed a titty without consent? Is any of this germane to how the guy will do his job?

    Now, I don't believe her for a second -- she reminds me of Darlene on Ozark. A troubled, angry, psychopathic woman. They should have asked her whether she was part of the resistance? Would she instruct Facebook to recover her account and provide it? If so, why not? What is she hiding? Probably a ton.

  • Michael Cook||

    I've listened to a lot of such testimonies in trials and I tend to believe that this lady is sincere in that something long ago did happen to mess her up. I am convinced she is messed up mentally to this day.

    However, I also believe that memory is a strange and unpredictable thing. When she began naming Bret K. in 2012 it had already been 30 yeas since the alleged incident. That is an awful long time to preserve a pristine memory. I would suggest that after so long her brain might have been capable of plugging any face she recalled from that era into the-groper-on-top position. A person who is being mentioned for high office already in 2012 might be elevated in the brain as a person worth remembering. We humans are like that. Positive or negative, we like to brag about who we know.

    Mark Judge might clarify this point and a lot of other points as well, including how young Miss Blasey got home that night, as she had no car and did not come with anyone she can recall.

  • markm23||

    Just one thing: Did she name K. in 2012, or only after he was nominated? 2012 was when she "remembered" two, or maybe four, guys assaulting her, but they aren't named in any written record. Maybe she named him privately to her husband, but I can't consider him any more reliable as a witness than all the people she thinks were there that deny remembering any party like that...

    And Mark Judge can't clarify anything, since he has already stated that he does not remember being there, wherever and whenever "there" was.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Just one thing: Did she name K. in 2012, or only after he was nominated?

    Long before he was nominated.

    And Mark Judge can't clarify anything, since he has already stated that he does not remember being there, wherever and whenever "there" was.

    Or he can perjure himself. Mark's book describes a classmate who puked into a car, then passed out drunk, named "Bart O'Kavenaugh." (wink, wink)

    Kavanaugh was asked TWICE if he was Bart O'Kavanaugh ... and REFUSED both times. WHY?
    He denies everything EXCEPT a published event -- which he REFUSES to deny.
    WHY?

    It's over. Accept it and move on.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Given that robby made up his mind before all of this came out, and he doesn't believe in due process, and somehow he considers a sworn statement submitted in writing to be invalid, it's a bit rich for him to lecture about principles. Cuz he sure as shit has none.

  • John||

    Last night he was saying the fairy tail about the gang rapes, which no one believes was "credible" because it was made in a sworn statement. Today, Mark Judge giving a sworn statement is appearently not enough.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Idiots here give Robby credit for questioning the Rolling Stone story. But many people on the internet had explained for days the many ways in which that story was insane. What Robby said yesterday is what you get when he has to depend on his own judgement.

  • John||

    Go fuck yourself Hihn, you crazy bastard. You were banned. Stop lurking as a sock puppet.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    He beat you, John.
    And I see you stalking him down the page.
    A poor loser.

  • John||

    shut up Hihn or people will stop feeling sorry for you.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano can't wait to name me a third time on his Enemies List.

  • Libertymike||

    Banning him smacks of the #metoo mafia mindset. You know me, I'd much rather have the amusement and entertainment value of his lunacy... and his hurt feelings after being humiliated.

  • John||

    I generally agree with you about banning. But Hihn is legitimately crazy and unbalanced. Allowing him on here is basically just being cruel to him and it also might be dangerous. Hihn is the kind of crazy that shows up on someone's doorstep with a gun some day. Hihn is not just your conventional retard like Tony or Shreek who should just be tolerated. He is a legitimate crazy and needs to go.

  • Libertymike||

    Yeah, there is a qualitative difference to the mode of his comments - they scream HIHN + HIS POSTS = CRAZY.

  • TuIpa||

    I'm pretty sure that's why they banned him, he made a credible threat of violence because he's crazy.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

  • VinniUSMC||

    Loser who denigrates Fox News attempts to use Fox News to claim some sort of strange victory... and fails.

    Fuck off Hihnfection. Please burn both of your socks.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Behold the retard!

    Loser who denigrates Fox News attempts to use Fox News to claim some sort of strange victory... and fails.

    I'll TRY to dumb it down for you
    You're a liar about me and Fox NEWS (do you know the difference?)

    I cited Fox News because that's YOUR tribe. If I had cited anyone else, you'd have sneered some shit about lefties. I cite Fox and you sneer that I denigrate them, so failed.

    Thus, you losertaaians sneer any ANY in-conveen-yent FACTS. Which is why we laugh at you.

    PROOF they're ALL whiny losers ... from FOX NEWS!!!

    Only a faux Marine would describe PROOF as MY fail!

    Anything else?

  • mamabug||

    I admit to only half-paying attention to this but... am I wrong in thinking that she repeatedly called on Judge to testify while at the same time refusing to even name the one guy who could possibly have given us insight into how she behaved in high school and how she and Kavanaugh might have ended up at the same party?

    O.K.

    If I had any doubts that she sincerely wanted the truth to come out, this pretty much killed it.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    am I wrong

    Massively.

  • Libertymike||

    Are you auditioning to be part of the #metoo mafia? That you are even here disqualifies you.

  • mamabug||

    Ah - found what made me think this, time stamp abt. 2pm Eastern. I'll have to listen to the rebroadcast to see if it is an accurate summary. Sounds like a potential cooberating witness that she and Kavanaugh at least knew each other, but she is withholding his name.

    Ford is asked about the classmate who connected her with Kavanaugh.

    Ford said she didn't feel it was right to name the person publicly.

    She asked how long she knew this person and she said for a few months they socialized and she knew his younger brother from the country club.

    Ford said she "went out" with this person for a few months and were "distant friends" after that.

    When asked if this person was the only common link between her and Kavanaugh, she said that he is the only one she can name right now.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Fucking liar

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Your side lost, goobers, Even Fox News says so!!

  • Libertymike||

    Too many long conversations,
    And no one is hearin' a word,
    Just trying to escape the frustrations,
    Until a song in the night can be heard...

  • SIV||

    The Republican senators—all men— * Robby spits*
  • ThomasD||

    That's not how I heard it.

  • Tony||

    Berty is being kind of an angry black woman.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Brett is spitting fire right now, holy hell.

  • Tony||

    That's totally not a guy who gets mean when he's drunk.

  • John||

    Yeah Tony. Being angry about denying something is totally not what an innocent person would do. You are such a disgusting human being.

  • Tony||

    He's alleging a coordinated conspiracy among Democrats necessarily accusing Prof. Ford of being an actor.

    Is that more plausible than the fact that this screaming lunatic might have been a rapey drunk as a frat douche? Careful how much competence you attribute to Diane Feinstein.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    The conspiracy he's talking about is the timing of the release of facts, and that Feinstein sat on this for months before carefully timing the release. You can't blame him for thinking that was entirely orchestrated.

  • Tony||

    This has been thoroughly explained. Would it not have been better to assassinate his character before the hearings?

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Not if the goal was to stall and stretch things out.

  • Tony||

    The absolute horror. Justice Merrick Garland would not approve of such a delay... oh wait.

  • TuIpa||

    Stop pretending you give a fuck about Garland.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, the hearings for Merrick Garland were a farce too...oh wait they just didn't happen. Totally comparable I'm sure.

  • TuIpa||

    "This has been thoroughly explained."

    And that wasn't credible either.

  • John||

    A bunch of woman, all of whom are partisan Democrats and all of whom are connected to the same lawyers are slandering him. That is called a conspiracy you half wit.

    He is the mad rapist but somehow never touched anything but a hard core Democratic partisan woman. yeah, that is likely. You are just a nasty fascist piece of shit Tony. It is who you are.

  • Tony||

    Between Democrats and Republicans, it's not the former who are automatically suspicious because of their party affiliation. We are neither predisposed to nor as talented at lying.

  • John||

    When there are only Democrats accusing him and none of them have any evidence or credible accusations, that is suspicious you moron.

  • Tony||

    It's a random, previously anonymous woman accusing him. And then the other three random women (and counting!).

  • TuIpa||

    Try to keep up chief.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You mean the people who opposed XX's nomination aren't predisposed? Cool logic.

  • Eddy||

    The Democrats have shown they may not be naturally talented at lying - that's why they make up for it by practice, practice, practice!

  • Seamus||

    Funny how teenage Kavanaugh couldn't find any Republican chicks to assault.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Your side lost, whiny goobers, Even Fox News says so!!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    He's alleging a coordinated conspiracy among Democrats

    A plausible allegation, considering they sat on this until after the hearings. Doesn't make it true, of course-- the Dems could very well just be creatures of low future-time orientation (a high probability considering their constituency).

    Being a hard drinker doesn't make you a sexual predator, however.

  • TuIpa||

    "He's alleging a coordinated conspiracy among Democrats necessarily accusing Prof. Ford of being an actor."

    No, that's just the stupid unrealistic way you have been trying to portray some politicians getting ahead by getting on the Ford train.

    And honestly, you sound REALLY stupid every time you try it.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Your side lost, goobers. Even Fox News says so!!

    Mark Page's book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh's freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses ... and REFUSED an. investigation for this Kangaroo Court (snort)

    Even Rachel Mitchell --- the GOP's designated questioner -- RIDICULED the hearing as a proper response to alleged sex abuse.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And you're totally not a fascist.

  • Rebel Scum||

    this isn't even an honest attempt to determine what actually happened.

    The claims are unfalsifiable. There is no way to determine what happened when it is all hearsay, nevermind the myriad of problems with Fords account of events (which is ever changing), that none of her acquaintances corroborated her account, that polygraphs are unreliable at best (and no baseline was established during her supposed polygraph), that she has not released her therapists notes, and that the politically convenient timing of this is politically convenient. Nothing here meets any semblance of an evidentiary standard. I wonder what your position would be if the partisan tables were turned. I would still be calling Ford a lying liar that lies*.

    *Seriously, she came of as a pathological liar. The bitch is a nuts.

  • mamabug||

    On the polygraph - my grandmother's funeral is right after this, but I can be calm when I answer truthfully....

  • Riesen||

  • Rob Misek||

    When Kavanagh overturns Roe vs Wade, can we charge everyone who has been directly involved with or condoned abortion since 1973 with murder?

    #fuckyou

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Umm, a fetal child's unalienable right to Life is precisely equal to the woman's unalienable right to Liberty.
    #DefinitionOfUnalienable
    (smirk)

  • BYODB||

    If their rights were precisely equal abortion would be illegal as it explicitly places the woman's rights above those of the fetus.

    You don't even understand why abortion is allowed, do you? You just know some catch phrases. No need to answer though, I easily recall your claims that natural rights can't be in opposition to one another.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Goobers be full of shit morons.

    The fetal child has full rights at viability. The woman before that. BOTH RIGHTS MUST BE DEFENDED.

    The authoritarian left seeks to deny ALL ights of the fetus by government force.
    The authoritarian right seeks to deny ALL rights of the woman by government force.

    . No need to answer though, I easily recall your claims that natural rights can't be in opposition to one another.

    (sneer) Precisely backwards, imbecile

    HOW WOULD YOU DEFEND BOTH EQUAL RIGHTS, EQUALLY, GOOBER?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Every unwelcome fetus is a rapist.

  • DiegoF||

    OHHHHHHHHHH this nigga came out SWINGIN!!!!

    No matter what happens here I love the guy.

    The last scrap of mask is off SCOTUS now. We're done pretending it's anything but a third lawmaking branch. Nothing will ever be the same.

  • jonnysage||

    Im still confused as to what Fords allegation has to do with his confirmation, whether its true or not? Is she saying he shouldnt be a judge at 51 because of something she thinks he did when was a kid? People dont change?

  • Tony||

    The simplest explanation is usually the best. He was a cloistered all-boys prep school douche who didn't realize that women were anything other than pieces of meat until he was probably in his 40s. He's also got addiction issues and is a mean, rapey drunk. We all have known them.

    Oh and he advocated for exposing every last curved inch of Bill Clinton's sex life for the purpose of maximum humiliation. Fuck Republicans. I hope this is all a set up. But it doesn't seem to be.

  • John||

    The simplest explanation is that she is lying. And you don't hope this is a set up. You nasty lying little bastard.

  • Tony||

    Then they need a new category at the Academy Awards. Of course Mr. Kav has no incentive to lie. It's only an appointment to the supreme court.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You still don't understand what evidence is. Hint: it's not your emotions or desires. But take heart, robby is confused about these mature and rational concepts just as much as you are.

  • Tony||

    You're alleging a conspiracy theory so tightly concocted that it paints Democrats as tactical geniuses they've never proven themselves to be. Just let it go.

  • TuIpa||

    Not at all, just one lying/crazy bitch and a bunch of opportunists who have always been opportunists.

    No conspiracy at all.

  • TuIpa||

    I really don't see how Democrats supporters can be dumb enough to try the "omfg you're alleging a CONSPIRACY" when this is literally one person and a political party full of opportunists.

    The attempt to paint people as crazy because a single person lied and many people whose political success is attached to making her seem credible doesn't sound anything like a conspiracy, it sounds like business as usual in Washington.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, I agree with john that the simplest explanation is that she's either intentionally lying or mistaken. Literally, and I mean LITERALLY, there is no evidence or corroboration of any of these accusations. The fact that you immediately jump to a conclusion of conspiracy certainly reveals how your mind works, though.

  • TxJack 112||

    I do not think she is lying and believe that she sincerely believes what she is saying is true. The problem is that is not evidence and you do not destroy a man and his career without any proof or at least solid facts. She cannot say when or where the assault occurred and the people she said were present at the party which would have at least put her and Kavanagh together have refuted her claim. Let's not pretend. After what he have seen after the Weinstein and Cosby cases, as well as the "retirement" of so many members of Congress for similar allegations, the hope of Democrats was the allegation alone would be enough to get Kavanagh to withdraw and they would have their delay. Delaying the confirmation was and remains their only objective. 23 minutes after he was nominated, Schumer said he would do everything in his power to block the confirmation of Kavanagh. That is all you need to know.

  • jonnysage||

    That's doesn't answer my question at all. She doesn't know anything about him after he was 17. She's judging his character NOW based on something then.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Your side lost, goobers. Even Fox News says so!!

    Mark Page's book describes Kavanaugh as a hopeless drunk. So did Kavanaugh's freshman roommate at Yale, and a nasty drunk. THAT is why they REFUSED any inconvenient witnesses. (snort)

    Even Rachel Mitchell --- the GOP's designated questioner -- RIDICULED the hearing as a proper response to alleged sex abuse.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Robby's tears are so yummy and sweet.

  • John||

    Yeah. he seems a bit butt hurt about the whole thing. That is a pretty good indication that it didn't go well for Ford.

  • ravenshrike||

    Yeah, not a single attempt to find any truth whatsoever. Which is why for every single fucking question that would have begun to narrow down verifiable details of the incident or Ford's private actions leading up to this hearing Ford's response was some variation of "I don't recall".

  • Tony||

    Oh he went to church. Case closed.

  • Tony||

    I think he drank beer before this hearing.

  • DiegoF||

    He should've drunk more considering how quick his mouth gets dry. SCOTUS (yes, even I think there may be hope for him now, after seeing this) is going to have to make sure to have a bucket stand of Evians behind the bench for him.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Why is anyone watching this without Zina Bash in the background?

  • DiegoF||

    That was the signal for the defending army to quietly mobilize in anticipation of the exposure of Kavanaugh's crimes. Now that it has been done, white power has been assured in this country so there is no need.

  • GoatOnABoat||

    yawn

  • Dillinger||

    the sniffling is being picked up by the mic hardcore

  • Uncle Jay||

    What?
    No one wanted to a witness who contradicts herself and has other people showing her as a liar?
    Oh, the horror.
    The horror!

  • Sam M||

    "This isn't due process—this isn't even an honest attempt to determine what actually happened."

    Just curious. What would an honest attempt to find out what happened 35 years ago actually look like, when one person says one thing and two others say they were never there. I am big on process. I love me some process! But I am at a loss at what process would actually achieve "determining what actually happened."

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Well part of that would be looking at the written testimony submitted under penalty of perjury of every single witness named by the accuser refuting her accusation. But that would also mean that robby would have to admit that the only evidence submitted so far disproves the allegation and that produces an outcome that robby will not accept: kavanaugh on scotus.

    So instead we get the moving goalposts requiring Judge to submit to in person testimony (no doubt in full public view for transparency reasons), because that would be given under penalty of perjury unlike his written statement which was submitted under... penalty of perjury.

    And ends always justify the means with robby.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    (omfg)

    Well part of that would be looking at the written testimony submitted under penalty of perjury of every single witness named by the accuser refuting her accusation

    HOW CAN THERE BE A PERJURY CHARGE IF THEY NEVER TESTIFY IN A HEARING?

    How easily brainwashed can you people be?

  • markm23||

    This is not the 9th Century. A false sworn affidavit is perjury just like false testimony under oath - only without the possibility of arguments about whether a word was misunderstood.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    COWARDLY DIVERSION,

    HOW CAN THERE BE A PERJURY CHARGE IF THEY NEVER TESTIFY IN A HEARING?
    Still confused? On what basis would the perjury be proven?

    Skippy also lied about "every single witness named by the accuser refuting her accusation."
    1) NONE OF THEM DID. Not a single one. They ALL gave different phrasing of "I don't recall. I didn't see it," etc.
    2) NONE of them were stated as "witnesses" since they were presumed to be on the ground floor -- except Mark Judge who also did not refute.

    Anything else?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Soave the douchebag and his ilk wants law enforcement to spend the next several months talking to every person Kavanaugh has ever known in his entire life going back to when he was ten years old.

    But because Soave is such a complete lying asswipe, even if law enforcement talked to a thousand other people and they all gave Kavanaugh nothing but positive testimonials, that still wouldn't matter to him, because he simply doesn't want Kavanaugh (or any other Trump nominee) to be confirmed, period.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Soave the douchebag and his ilk wants law enforcement to spend the next several months talking to every person Kavanaugh has ever known in his entire life going back to when he was ten years old.

    We already know you're a psycho. You didn't have to prove it.

    But because Soave is such a complete lying asswipe, even if law enforcement talked to a thousand other people and they all gave Kavanaugh nothing but positive testimonials, that still wouldn't matter to him, because he simply doesn't want Kavanaugh (or any other Trump nominee) to be confirmed, period.

    One
    Sick
    Fuck

  • Dillinger||

    >>>achieve "determining what actually happened."

    eliminate everything that didn't happen first.

  • Mark22||

    What would an honest attempt to find out what happened 35 years ago actually look like

    Several hours of questioning of Ford by an experienced investigators to get facts and details, a full background check on Ford, and likely a psychiatric evaluation of Ford to determine whether she is suffering from, or susceptible to, false memories. After that, if she can produce any facts, witnesses, etc., following up on those.

    The most likely outcomes are that (1) her memories are determined to be likely false, (2) she can't produce any facts, or (3) her facts don't check out.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Psycho conservatard OPENLY defends a BLATANT Kangaroo Court.

    After that, if she can produce any facts, witnesses, etc., following up on those.

    WE ALREADY HAVE THE WITNESSES ... AND THEY WERE FORBIDDEN TO BE QUESTIONED.

    How can they be judged on perjury ,. if they cannot be questioned?

    Who ties your shoes?

  • XM||

    By the standards of due process, this entire fiasco has been favorable to Ford and biased against BK.

    Ford received a hearing despite not having filed criminal charges on BK. There was no official investigation from ANY level. She produced no witnesses who confirm her story. Due process doesn't guarantee that you get 20 uninterrupted minutes to tell a completely unverified story before politicians who are willing to listen to her for purely partisan reasons. This is no different from the laughable notion that Ford's due process rights were denied because Grassley had power to set the hearing date.

    And there's the matter of democrats' official position of "BK is guilty until proven innocent, we believe the victim by default".

    Robby nitpicking over procedure but refusing to see the larger picture, something that he would see if it occurred at a college campus. The prosecution is often interested in cornering defendants during depositions. Was this all that different? There are plenty of gotcha moments and underhanded tactics during trial. If Ford has to answer questions every four minutes because people have questions about her already published and questionable account, that's her cross to bear. She can't make all the demands and accommodations.

  • Mark22||

    Any investigation of Kavanaugh would have had to start with formal charges, extensive questioning and background search of Ford to get actual facts, and probably a psychiatric evaluation of Ford. That would likely have found that she is either lying or suffering from false memories. And that would have been the end of the story. Only past those hurdles could an investigation then try to corroborate her story by fact-checking each and every one of the details she provides.

    Of course, due process and a fact-based rational analysis is what Ford and Feinstein have worked meticulously to sabotage.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Ford received a hearing despite not having filed criminal charges on BK

    THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.

    Anything else I can humiliate you on?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    So, you're saying, anything goes outside a court room? Good to know your (lack of) standards.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "She produced no witnesses who confirm her story."

    Technically, she produced witnesses. They denied her story.

  • mamabug||

    1. Democrats never cared about due process. They haven't in a very, very long time if they ever did.

    2. (Some) Republicans might have cared about it, if they had time to consider things. Which they didn't. See point #1.

    3. So at this point, all that matters is whether Ford is believable enough to outrage the Red-State/Blue Senator 'believe all women' voter base more than Kavannaugh is believable enough to outrage the Blue-State/Red Senator 'dear God, imagine what would happen if the dems took power' voter base.

  • Mark Question||

    Wow. This is trash even by Reason standards.

    You have to be a complete Marxist idiot to believe that partisanship has anything to do with the Republican Party's efforts to get this fabulous jurist on the Supreme Court.

    It's very simple. If you believe a word of what this woman says, your a leftist traitorous tumor. If you stick up for the truth, there's nothing partisan or biased about that.

    If Reason wants credibility, they need to renounce open borders, any opposition to Trump, and their support of drug addicts and buttsex. If you have any ideological overlap with the left, you deserve to be tyrannized.

  • parisc2||

    Due process and this mess? Are you serious?

  • Mark22||

    Ford and Feinstein did everything in their power to undermine due process, by waiting with these accusations until after the hearings and imposing an endless litany of conditions. Ford deserves sharp condemnation for her unconscionable behavior, and Feinstein deserves censure.

    How would due process actually look? Ford seems to believe what she is saying, but this has all the hallmarks of false memories. If this were to be examined at all, it would have had to have started with a psychiatric evaluation of Ford, followed by an extended FBI questioning of her to get all the facts.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    If Ford's letter had not been leaked, we'd have never heard of her.

    Keep making a fool of yourself on even the most obvious facts.

  • ifthenwhy||

    "The Republican senators—all men..."

    Because men can't possibly take a woman, who is claiming assault, seriously?

    When did Reason start allowing such hacks to stain this site with such lazy Progressive tropes?

  • Nardz||

    As long as I've been coming here - which is since January

  • EZepp||

    Of course this is political. And who bears the lion's share for making it such?

    If The Republican's fail, no one in their right mind will volunteer to serve in any capacity, for if they do, they can expect an endless string of last minute vague evidence-free "discoveries" to the horizon and beyond.

    Ford may actually believe what she says, though that doesn't make it so. The Democrats trampled all over her credibility by so obviously manipulating the process to make this all about stalling, not truth seeking. In the end she's just more collateral damage in their politics of personal destruction.

  • ThomasD||

    The Dems knew the WaPo had it as well, and were presumably waiting for the proverbial other shoe to drop if/when they found some corroboration.

    The WaPo never did, and the longer they didn't the more it became apparent to the Dems that their only use for Blasey Ford was as a mud slinging stall tactic.

    But, apparently this is rocket science to Soave and the other leftists at Reason.

  • 1440 minutes||

    Why does Reason no longer look libertarian?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Because your head is up your ass.
    And ignorant enough to confuse libertarians with the Authoritarian Right..

    Left - Right = Zero
    Libertarians have openly ridiculed both, for decades.
    And over 60% of Americans now agree.

    Your time has expired,
    Buh-Bye

  • Rockabilly||

    Robby has the hots for Christine Blasey Ford and Dianne Feinstein.

    He would like to be the hot wiener between their sweet buns

  • StackOfCoins||

    Just the idea of being the "wiener" for Dianne Feinstein's "buns" is horrifying, and I hate you.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Robby has the hots for Christine Blasey Ford and Dianne Feinstein.

    You've now made the same bat-shit crazy claim about five people ... who DARE to disagree with you.

    What does that say about your IQ? And your respect for differing views, precious snowflake?

  • majil||

    She is afraid to fly ? Bullshit. She did not know the Senate Chairman said they would come to her in the Granola State ? bullshit . She did not name Kavanaugh on the Lie detector test she took ? Bullshit

  • librich||

    The fact that the committee's review of K was so completely politicized before Ford surfaced poisoned what happened afterward. None of this has anything to do with K or Ford. The Senators don't give a fig about either. It's a war, and what they care about is winning or losing. Personally, I thought Ford was credible, and I would want to hear what kind of testimony Judge would give under circumstances where he feared he'd go to the slammer if he was caught in a lie. But I can't blame K for resisting any further investigation, because the Demos will be united against him irrespective of what the investigation turns up. They were united against him before anyone knew who Ford was.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Very well stated ,,, regardless of which one you lean toward
    And so refreshing on a page filled with the robotic minds of Trumptards.

  • wreckinball||

    Actually it was much broader than K. Anyone Trump nominated.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    I just logged in to comment that as long as that cosmo queer Soave remains on staff you'll never see a dime out of me. Reason.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    This made her line of questioning very difficult to follow . . . . If Mitchell's ultimate goal was to undermine Ford's credibility, she failed.

    Judging by the way she proceeded, Mitchell's goal struck me as getting to the truth, and if the truth undermined Ford's credibility, letting the chips fall where they may.

    A difficult-to-follow line of questioning is a hallmark of expert prosecutorial practice. As long as everyone in the court, including the person questioned, can't figure out what she is driving at, answers can't be slanted in anticipation. Only the truth will suffice.

    That puts a lying witness in a terrible pickle. Guessing what the point of a question might be, the witness tailors a response to fit the guess. Then the next question suggests a different point, and gets different tailoring. Eventually, all on her/his own, the witness builds a record of contradictions and deception, which becomes plain during the questioner's summation.

    To me, Mitchell looked masterful. Before she was done with her examination of Ford, I started to wonder if Republicans would be compelled to think again, and cut her out of the process after she started in on Kavanaugh. That they did that, showed me they recognized, and feared, what Mitchell's questioning would do to Kavanaugh. It wouldn't be surprising if Kavanaugh himself demanded Republicans get rid of her—and then, to their shame, they did.

  • vek||

    I'm not going to rehash the same shit I've posted in other recent articles, but I will say this:

    She's a whiney bitch if she's soooo traumatized about a nothing incident like this in the first place. Basically nothing even happened to her. If she'd been REAL raped, like the full monty, at knife point etc... I can understand that messing somebody up for life. But getting groped over the top of her clothing for 10 seconds, and the "attacker" stopping when he realized she wasn't down... Give me a fucking break. It surely isn't cool, but to any normal person it shouldn't be a life ruining situation.

    I personally have experienced a rape incident FAR worse than this in my life, and you don't see me being a basket case about it. I got borderline blackout drunk, puked my guts out, and then got walked into a room where a girl I would NEVER sleep with in a million years if I were sober proceeded to start molesting me. She basically undressed my drunk ass, and started going after it. Thanks to my puking a few minutes earlier I started sobering up enough to be like "Yo, can't really do this right now... We're done."

    THAT is far more of an actual rape than anything she is claiming. But again, you don't see me crying about it, or trying to wreck this girls life by filing rape charges 16/17 years after the fact. End of unempathetic asshole rant.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I talked to the wrong girl in my last year in elementary school, (As a nerd, I suspect all the girls were the wrong girl, but this one was apparently especially wrong.) got held down spread eagle by two other guys while she repeatedly kicked me in the balls. Traumatized me enough that I didn't date until I was nearly 40.

    And, you know what? If I could identify the three of them today I'd... do absolutely nothing about it. We were kids. You don't expect kids to have fully formed moral senses or impulse control.

    Even if it happened the way Ford claims, I'm not impressed with her actions.

  • wreckinball||

    She was worth hearing? Why?

    Lets see she doesn't know when where but she knows Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party 36 years ago where she definitely only had one beer.

    She doesn't have a firm grasp on who was here but everyone name she names says either it didn't happen or at least they didn't have any knowledge of it. Her "best" friend has no knowledge of it and says she doesn't know Kavanaugh.

    She was fearful of flying just to DC but not Tahiti or a month ago to take a polygraph which she doesn't know who paid for and can't even correlate it as the same day as her grandmother's funeral. What a memory she has!

    I guess she is fine in a goofy kind of way until until she falsely accuses you of sexual assault.

  • gphx||

    Ford can't say when or where the supposed events happened. She can't say who drove her there or back. Her four 'witnesses' signed sworn statements indicating no of them were at the alleged event. One witness is female so some people only #BelieveWomen when it supports their obstructionist agenda. The FBI declined to investigate citing a near complete lack of details such as time and place.

    In a sane world this would have been over before it started. The author is correct is asserting it's unfairness but that unfairness was to Judge Kavanaugh and any rational being. Once confirmed President Trump should award Judge Kavanaugh a Purple Heart for surviving so-called 'friendly' fire in the line of duty.

  • Michael Cook||

    I would like Mark Judge to testify, Ford's Facebook records to be opened under court order and examined for political bias and intensity, Ford's therapist records to be produced, and all records and recordings of the lie detector session to be produced, to include testimony from those who administered the test.

    Also, it would be appropriate to do a complete and thorough examination of Christine Ford's life and mental stability history, starting BEFORE the alleged party incident when she was 15. She herself has made her mental health the key element of her monumental charge against Brett K., and that absolutely opens the door to completely looking into the dark space behind that door.

  • TxJack 112||

    Wow how many more inaccurate assumptions can be put into a single article. Mark Judge provided a sworn statement about the issue. A statement that carries the penalty of a charge of perjury if he lied. Second, the Senators were listening and all of them said they believe something happened to Dr. Ford. Even Kavanagh said he believes her. They all just said, there is no evidence to prove it was him and she is unable to provide any details or other corroboration. If Democrats were so concerned about the allegation and wanted to find out the facts, they could have referred it to the FBI immediately who would have conducted a confidential investigation. Instead they held it until all other attempts to delay failed and then outed Dr. Ford against her wishes. If anyone was not listening to Dr. Ford it was the Democrats who victimized her again for nothing more than politics.

  • HANSENWT||

    Emotion carries the day now....Politicians cater to emotion to get votes...and believe it or not sometimes people are more emotional over something then they should be....you can't use Ford's background against her in court...(but of course the Dems are trying to use Kavanaugh's to make it possible he did this)....but I can't help but be bothered by the Ford we say at the hearing and the girl who is painted as a bit of a lush promiscuis party girl for several years after this event (very outgoing, very head strong, putting her in the same situation for this to happen again over and over but not bothered enough at the time (assuming summer 82 is correct)....but could something have happened at a home near the country club in 84, 85, 86 ("mid-80's", "late teens" from the 2012 therapy session)...that changed her from "high school" her to what we saw yesterday. But then Kavanaugh can not realistically exist in her life if the notes are true....how can both the notes and her testimony be true.

  • Dadlobby||

    what a mangina this author is, she isn't worth hearing at all. My 35 years in law enforcement tells me I would send her packing which is why she tries the slander part. it's an obvious ruse, lacking the ability to Bork the guy the Dimwitocrats used the "nuclear bomb of a false allegation. http://nymensactionnetwork.org.....b-for-men/

  • Dadlobby||

    And wtf does "all men" have to do with impartiality? What a mangina robby is. You guys drink purple feminist koolaid?

  • blondrealist||

    Hear Dr. Ford say what? Doesn't seem like she has anything to say besides that she believes 100% that Kavanaugh was the drunk guy who tried to sexually assault her at a party at a house she can't identify, and that she's not sure when the party took place - not even sure what month it was - and she can't remember how she got to the party or how she got home. She either walked or got a ride or....took a taxi? She named witnesses, but none of them corroborated her story. What else is there for her to say? Does Robby think Dr. Ford has new information that hasn't come out?

    I suppose that the FBI, if given enough time, could interview all of Kavanaugh's class mates along with Dr. Ford's classmates and turn up some witnesses that might say....that they believe Kavanaugh was drunk at one or more parties back then, but unless Bret's friend Mike Judge - the ONLY person Dr. Ford said was a witness to the assault - changes his statement and says "yes, my drunk friend Bret tried to hump Christine at that party in high school at the Jones' house when Mr. & Mrs. Jones were out of town", then we will still be left with "she said vs. he said".

    I'm not saying that Kavanaugh is innocent - I just don't think Dr. Ford has any thing more to add that she hasn't already said.

  • markm23||

    In the six background investigations the FBI did for Kavanaugh's various government jobs, they should have already interviewed every classmate who could have ever recognized Kavanaugh by sight. IMO, that's why there aren't a bunch of attention seekers and leftist operatives popping up with lies confirming Ford's story - anything they say that contradicts those old interview transcripts risks a prison sentence for lying to federal investigators.

  • HANSENWT||

    No its not an honest attempt by either side....but Repubs are placating so they don't look bad. Dems know they have a nothing burger in reality at this point. The honest attempt at truth went out the window when Feinstein sat on it. Repubs are left with a choice to reward Feinstein and investigate further or defend due process and do more then what should be done if someone calls your boss and says these things and he calls the police and they come back with all witnesses saying I know them both and this never happened...i.e...then it didn't happen until someone can produce more...the police would not go try to prove your story they are supposed to dig up evidence and see what the evidence says...and what it says is Kavanaugh wasn't there so she has to be making a mistake somewhere on someone....therefore doubt...therefore nothing....Emotion is not fact....Feinstein and Katz did Ford a grave disservice by not being realistic with her and advising her that this was not enough....or Ford was in on it and willing to give it the old college try....they told Anita Hill "don't worry about it, it will never get as far as a hearing, either Thomas or HW will withdraw...and guess what bad advice again.

  • HenryC||

    There is no way to fairly adjudicate this matter. It would have had to be done thirty years ago. They are entirely different people today than they were when they were teenagers. I doubt seriously there is any way to find out if Kavanaugh played any part of Ms. Fords trauma and in any case the statue of limitations is way way past. Mr. Kavanaugh has thirty years of exemplary living in the areas of life and legal action. This hearing has been a travesty. The worst part is that it is likely to totally destroy Ms. Ford's life, which was already troubled.

  • HANSENWT||

    Actually no SOL for the crime she alledges....can go file right now and her lawyers are well aware....but is she willing to file that it was "attempted rape" and are the police going to take her complaint and weigh it on what is said to what they feel may have occurred and corroborate that with the law. Example...if a 15 year old came in with her parents and said all these same things...how would they proceed if the "culprit" was 17...I have a feeling it would go to the juvenile authorities first...and at some point we would still have something south of "attempted rape" with adjudication accordingly from dismissed through mediation or guilty of inappropriate misdemeanor touching or something like that)....Point is if today's Police would proceed that way by direction or instinct then it is out of SOL for those crimes and therefore adjudicated as no charges, no crime. That would not have worked out well yesterday and that is why they keep saying FBI FBI FBI...also the FBI may find something else to ruin others with which would be their obligation....and that would make some people quite happy I am thinking. Local PD is not likely to come across "bigger" things.

  • HANSENWT||

    I have an idea on the Judge angle but not fair for me to say with all involved but my theory is they are trying to get to Judge for a reason to show Kavanaugh could have been there...which still in my mind doesn't prove anything...you have to ask why Ford is really interested in Judge seemingly more so then Kavanaugh but she is not interested in a boy that lived near the Country Club that worked there and went out with and suddenly stopped going out with after the event...and that boy was friends of both Kavanaugh and Judge (her testimony not mine)...she doesn't want that guy bothered or her old best friend who also says she never met Kavanaugh anywhere but was at this event and expected to be there with Judge...so Judge and Ingham are specifically old friends of Ford. I think something happened and I think that some of the names out there were involved but from everything that is "official info" summer of 82 does not make sense. They never went for the kill shot on "who's house could it be". One would reasonably assume it was a house of someone there....so who lived near the club that she knew and why does she want him as far away from this as possible (because it adds doubt?)?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    NONE of that is true. Mark Judge's own book describes a out-of-control drunk, named "Bart O'Kavanaugh" (wink,wink)

    Kavanaugh was asked TWICE to deny that he is Bart Kavanaugh, and REFUSED to, under oath.
    The first time. he clenched his laws and refused to say a word.
    The second time, he said "You must ask Mark Judge,." ... Ummm, WHEN?

    This is collapsing. Protect yourself from the damage,

  • Presskh||

    If Ford's accusations are true, then let her file a complaint, under oath, against Kavanaugh at her local police station. There is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in New Jersey, so that should not be an excuse. Her fabricated story would quickly fall apart.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    While you were off the planet, a proper investigation was called for by
    1) Senate Judiciary Committee
    2) American Bar Association which had ranked Kavanaugh as highly qualified
    3) The Dean of Yale Law School, Kavanaugh's own alma mater.
    4) President Donald J Trump.

    All of these at lest 8 hours before you posted that,

    Plus, Rachel Mitchell. the GOP's chosen prosecutor, after questioning Ford, RIDICULED that hearing as a proper response to any alleged victim of sexual abuse. And that was during the hearing.

    Expect Kavanaugh to withdraw. Since you are totally unaware of the most highly reported facts here, I suspect you're also unaware of all the claims and charges -- including that Kavanagh has already been documented for having perjured himself multiple times -- two lies, repeatedly. Like Trump does.

  • PG23COLO||

    What Ford recounted was fabricated. Memory doesn't work like that. She understands that, too, if she is honest with herself. People don't have such detailed memories of an event 35 years earlier. But memory is a creative faculty, when called upon.

    When events were actually recorded, and those recordings were compared to a person's memory of long-ago events, even startling and traumatizing events, the memory is shown to be contradicted by the recording.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies.
    He claims he was legally allowed to drink beer, but his drinking was illegal. The drinking age in Maryland changed to 21, before he became a senior, and he was not 18 as a junior. Associated Press

    He also lied that the other four people at the party have "denied." The events. HE is the only one denying it. The others all said they could not remember it, BIG difference. Only one other student was in the room, Mark Judge, and even he did not deny it happened, only that he could not recall it. AP Fact Check

    Most notable to me, Kavanaugh twice REFUSED to answer if he was the out of control drunk depicted in Mark Judges book as "Bart O'Kavanaugh." (wink wink) Is that because he was under oath? (lol)

    Check my sources. If recent history on this topic is a guide, this will now be followed by the typical raging hatred and personal attacks by Trump's loyal cyber-bullies NEVER any SUPPORTED challenge to the known facts.

    Because: Left - Right = Zero
    Both authoritarian, less than 40% of Americans, and still shrinking..

  • Hank Phillips||

    Like Fat Freddy, I was almost in favor of Kavanaugh when I heard of his spiking the punch bowl with "drugs," but Everclear?! Gimme a break! Besides, this whole hullaballoo is over the fear that Trump, favorite son of the Landover Baptist Televangelist Reverse The Libertarian Roe v Wade Ruling klavern, chose him to run roughshod over fertile females. The Gentlemen's Agreement whereby the nominee pretends to have no opinions about anything only exacerbates female suspicions. Imagine an 1850s nominee having no opinion on the Dred Scott case but still courting the black vote and you get the picture. Let 'im eat lynchings!

  • Michael Cook||

    If you believe in the concept of he said/she said being enough to convict and destroy, why isn't Bill Clinton being investigated for the rape of Juanita Broaddrick in 1978? This was actually on a specific day in April of 1978 in a specific room at the Camelot Motor Inn in Little Rock and she told a friend about it 30 minutes later. She did not report it to the authorities because he was A.G. of Arkansas at the time.

    As he went out the door he said: "You'd better get some ice on that."

    This man still draws a hefty pension and likes to flounce around making pronunciamentos on various subjects.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    If you believe in the concept of he said/she said being enough to convict and destroy

    SHAME ON YOU.
    WHO WAS CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION ... LIKE ANITA HILL'S ... AND WHO WAS NOT?

    Broderick was granted immunity by Ken Starr .... so she would not be guilty of perjury when she .... RECANTED her affidavit.

    Anything else?

    P.S. You ALSO never heard of Ken Star!! And his investigation of Clinton!!! That Kavanaugh worked on!!!!!

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Another BIG demand that Kavanaugh be withdrawn,,,

    This from a leading Jesuit publication, America Magazine. (Kavanaugh's high school was Jesuit)
    To this, add this the Dean of the prestigious Yale Law School, Judge Kavanaugh's own alma mater,

    The list is growing of supposedly dishonest answers from Kavanaugh on Thursday, now expanded to include diversions, evasions and refusals to key question. Personally, his refusal to deny that he is the total drunk in Mark Judge;s book, a classmate named "Bart O'Kavanaugh" This one is becoming a bandwagon. He claims innocence everywhere EXCEPT this published incident. With all his other claims that he was never a heavy drinker, why would he refuse to say it was not him who puked into a car and passed out?

    It's quite reasonable to assume he was avoiding perjury. He refused twice. The first one, he set his jaw and went totally silent, defiantly. New "witnesses" are popping up on his heavy drinking, including an ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, who says Mark described an event similar to Dr. Ford.s.

    At this moment, he's likely to be gone, long before the FBI finishes.

  • kavu||

    "she was able to speak with authority about memory and trauma."

  • John Galt Jr||

    She has two Masters degrees and a PhD in ..... PSYCHOLOGY!
    Anything else?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Vids or it never happened!

  • BILKER||

    to require an investigation would require Ford to have a credible witness other than Feinstein. She has NO eyewitnesses, can't remember where or when this imaginary attack occurred. This woman and her suppoters should be made to face charges of slander and defamation.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online